Changes

'''Judicial activism''' is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. 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 courts interpret laws in a way that sets precedents for future rulings. The legitimacy of such practices is the source of some debate as some believe that this is equivalent to courts passing laws using judicial fiat. Some say that this practice should be frowned upon because it allows judges to substitute their personal morals and judgement for the laws themselves. Others claim that this is a legitimate use of the power to interpret laws that is granted to the courts by the constitution, noting the fact that higher courts are not required to follow precedents set by lower courts.  

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]].   

The [[Warren Court]] has been accused of engaging judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]].   

   

   

[[category:law]]

[[category:law]]