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 illegally 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.

Though reluctant to criticize themselves, courts have referenced the term "judicial activism" in 975 reported cases as of Oct. 6, 2020, including 399 federal court decisions and 554 state court decisions.

Though reluctant to criticize themselves, courts have referenced the term "judicial activism" in 975 reported cases as of Oct. 6, 2020, including 399 federal court decisions and 554 state court decisions.

In this regard, judicial activism is a way for [[liberal]]s to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate.  While [[originalism|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 [[liberal]]s to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate.  While [[originalism|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 poop face

(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, 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.

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.