Changes

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s 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 [[court]]s 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.

Courts in California -- both state and federal ones -- 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 — both state and federal ones — 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.

Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' [[United States Constitution|Constitutionally]] mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' and ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]''.

Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' [[United States Constitution|Constitutionally]] mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' and ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]''.