Changes

Judicial activism occurs most often when [[judges]] substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law.  Occasionally, the term also applies to rulings that do not give due deference to agency decisions, as required under ''Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,'' 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

"Judicial activism" is a term used to critique judges who are seen to fail in their duty to apply laws created by the Legislature. Most often, a charge of "judicial activism" is an accusation that judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law.  Occasionally, the term also applies to rulings that do not give due deference to agency decisions, as required under ''Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,'' 467 U.S.). A critique of judicial activism is not itself partisan -- there are judicial activists on both the left and the right -- but in contemporary America, the charge has most often been made by rightist pundits.

[[category:law]]

[[category:law]]