Changes

| style="padding:15px;" |"A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a [[SCOTUS|committee of nine unelected lawyers]] does not deserve to be called [[democracy]]."<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; [[Justice Antonin Scalia]]<ref name="Mohler2015">{{cite book |title=We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong |author=R. Albert Mohler, Jr. |publisher=Harper Collins |year=2015 |pages=181 |isbn=978-07180-32487 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jNhhCAAAQBAJ |quote=}}</ref></div>

| style="padding:15px;" |"A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a [[SCOTUS|committee of nine unelected lawyers]] does not deserve to be called [[democracy]]."<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; [[Justice Antonin Scalia]]<ref name="Mohler2015">{{cite book |title=We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong |author=R. Albert Mohler, Jr. |publisher=Harper Collins |year=2015 |pages=181 |isbn=978-07180-32487 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jNhhCAAAQBAJ |quote=}}</ref></div>

|}

|}

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law through judicial ''will''.  Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action.  "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.  In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]], rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law through judicial ''will''.  Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action.  "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.  In so doing, the court illegally takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]], rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

In this regard, judicial activism is a way for liberals to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate. While originalist judges sometimes differ among themselves in specific court cases, left-wing judicial activists always vote in a way that advances left-wing policies, no matter how inconsistent they are.<ref>Natelson, Robert (October 20, 2018). [https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/412372-this-supreme-court-term-will-show-bench-lacks-conservative-majority This Supreme Court term will show bench lacks conservative majority]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved October 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Horowitz, Daniel (March 14, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/wheres-congressional-outrage-judicial-power-grabs/ Where’s the congressional outrage over judicial power grabs?] ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved March 16, 2019.</ref>

In this regard, judicial activism is a way for liberals to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate. While originalist judges sometimes differ among themselves in specific court cases, left-wing judicial activists always vote in a way that advances left-wing policies, no matter how inconsistent they are.<ref>Natelson, Robert (October 20, 2018). [https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/412372-this-supreme-court-term-will-show-bench-lacks-conservative-majority This Supreme Court term will show bench lacks conservative majority]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved October 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Horowitz, Daniel (March 14, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/wheres-congressional-outrage-judicial-power-grabs/ Where’s the congressional outrage over judicial power grabs?] ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved March 16, 2019.</ref>

The cradle of judicial activism is the USA.<ref name="Palko2009"/> However, it is seen in many other countries, such as the UK<ref>Dougherty, Michael Brendan (September 24, 2019). [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/the-curious-remainer-coup/ The Curious Remainer Coup]. ''National Review''. Retrieved September 25, 2019.</ref> and Israel, along with a large number of countries that legalized social taboos simply because of court actions.

The cradle of judicial activism is the USA.<ref name="Palko2009"/> However, it is seen in many other countries, such as the UK<ref>Dougherty, Michael Brendan (September 24, 2019). [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/the-curious-remainer-coup/ The Curious Remainer Coup]. ''National Review''. Retrieved September 25, 2019.</ref> and Israel, along with a large number of countries that legalized social taboos simply because of court actions.

Courts in California &#8212; both state and federal ones &#8212; frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision ''In re Marriage Cases'', wherein four California [[Supreme Court]] justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the [[liberal]] judges of the court from acting.  In response, a majority of California voters passed [[Proposition 8]], which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the [[liberal]] [[homosexual]] assault on marriage before it was too late.

Courts in California &#8212; both state and federal ones &#8212; frequently engage in judicial activism, invariably based on political ideology and personal feelings. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision ''In re Marriage Cases'', wherein four California [[Supreme Court]] justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized [[same-sex "marriage"]].  Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the [[liberal]] judges of the court from acting.  In response, a majority of California voters passed [[Proposition 8]], which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the [[liberal]] [[homosexual]] assault on marriage before it was too late.

Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' [[United States Constitution|Constitutionally]] mandated rule in enforcing [[limited government|limitations on government power]] and preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in ''[[Bush v. Gore]],'' ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]],'' and ''[[D.C. v. Heller]],'' and as the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] should have done with [[ObamaCare]].

Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' [[United States Constitution|Constitutionally]] mandated rule in enforcing [[limited government|limitations on government power]] and preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in ''[[Bush v. Gore]],'' ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]],'' and ''[[D.C. v. Heller]],'' and as the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] should have done with [[ObamaCare]].

Judicial activism can occasionally have a positive impact, although this impact can typically be better achieved by other methods. Many have cited [[Bolling v. Sharpe]], the companion case to [[Brown v. Board of Education]], which desegrated schools in [[Washington, D.C.]] as an example. The [[Equal Protection Clause]], which was cited in Brown, does not apply to the District of Columbia, only to the States. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools in the city were still unconstitutional because it was also a violation of the [[due process]] clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the impact was clearly desirable, the due process clause typically only applies to legal processes such as criminal trials, not to segregation. Also, the same result could have been achieved simply by an act of Congress, since they have control over the District's school system. Legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed in a debate that it was hard to reconcile the ruling with the Constitution, in spite of its positive impact.<ref>[http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp]</ref> These rare cases are therefore among the hardest for the Supreme Court to decide.

Judicial activism can occasionally have a positive impact, although this impact can typically be better achieved by other methods. Many have cited [[Bolling v. Sharpe]], the companion case to [[Brown v. Board of Education]], which desegrated schools in [[Washington, D.C.]] as an example. The [[Equal Protection Clause]], which was cited in Brown, does not apply to the District of Columbia, only to the States. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools in the city were still unconstitutional because it was also a violation of the [[due process]] clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the impact was clearly desirable, the due process clause typically only applies to legal processes such as criminal trials, not to segregation. Also, the same result could have been achieved simply by an act of Congress, since they have control over the District's school system. Legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed in a debate that it was hard to reconcile the ruling with the Constitution, in spite of its positive impact.<ref>[http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp]</ref> These rare cases are therefore among the hardest for the Supreme Court to decide.

==History==

==History==

*''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' — 2003 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[sodomy]].

*''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' — 2003 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[sodomy]].

*''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' — 2015 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]].

*''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' — 2015 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]].

*The [[Nicaragua]]n Supreme Court ruling allowing incumbent president [[Daniel Ortega]] to contest the 2011 election. The Nicaraguan Constitution forbids an individual from serving as president for more than two non-consecutive terms, disbarring Ortega from filing for reelection on both of these counts. Daniel Ortega, not willing to give up power, had the [[Sandinistas|Sandinista]]-controlled Supreme Court overrule the current law as being in "violation" of human rights.<ref>[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/nicaraguas-presidential-elections-how-daniel-ortega-could-shame-democracy Nicaragua’s Presidential Elections: How Daniel Ortega Could Shame Democracy - The American Heritage Foundation]</ref>

*The [[Nicaragua]]n Supreme Court ruling allowing incumbent president [[Daniel Ortega]] to contest the 2011 election. The Nicaraguan Constitution forbids an individual from serving as president for more than two non-consecutive terms, disbarring Ortega from filing for reelection on both of these counts. Daniel Ortega, not willing to give up power, had the [[Sandinistas|Sandinista]]-controlled Supreme Court overrule the current law as being in "violation" of human rights.<ref>[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/nicaraguas-presidential-elections-how-daniel-ortega-could-shame-democracy Nicaragua’s Presidential Elections: How Daniel Ortega Could Shame Democracy - The American Heritage Foundation]</ref>

*The [[Israel]]i Supreme Court is known for making ideologically based decisions and issuing rulings in favor of the country's Left camp and against its opponents.<ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_threat_to_israeli_liberties_from_the_israeli_supreme_court.html The Threat to Israeli Liberties from the Israeli Supreme Court - The American Thinker]</ref> Examples of this include forcing the Israelis government to recognize [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriages"]] performed abroad.<ref>[http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/107947/0/Israels-Supreme-Court-Approves-Same-Sex-Marriages-Performed-Abroad- Israel's Supreme Court Approves Same-Sex Marriages Performed Abroad - Associated Press]</ref>

*The [[Israel]]i Supreme Court is known for making ideologically based decisions and issuing rulings in favor of the country's Left camp and against its opponents.<ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_threat_to_israeli_liberties_from_the_israeli_supreme_court.html The Threat to Israeli Liberties from the Israeli Supreme Court - The American Thinker]</ref> Examples of this include forcing the Israelis government to recognize [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriages"]] performed abroad.<ref>[http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/107947/0/Israels-Supreme-Court-Approves-Same-Sex-Marriages-Performed-Abroad- Israel's Supreme Court Approves Same-Sex Marriages Performed Abroad - Associated Press]</ref>

*In 2017, the Constitutional Tribunal of [[Chile]] partially lifted the country's ban on abortion.<ref>Berry, Susan (August 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/08/21/chile-court-lifts-ban-abortion/ Chile Court Lifts Ban on Abortion]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 22, 2017.</ref>

*In 2017, the Constitutional Tribunal of [[Chile]] partially lifted the country's ban on abortion.<ref>Berry, Susan (August 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/08/21/chile-court-lifts-ban-abortion/ Chile Court Lifts Ban on Abortion]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 22, 2017.</ref>