Changes

|-

|-

| style="padding:15px;" |If you want to perform a [[revolution]], i.e. to fundamentally change the society and turn its values upside down, there are in essence three ways how to achieve for it:

| style="padding:15px;" |If you want to perform a [[revolution]], i.e. to fundamentally change the society and turn its values upside down, there are in essence three ways how to achieve for it:

#You can armor yourself and your friends and make and coup d'état attempt, a violent putsch as [[Bolshevik]]s did in 1917. This is however associated with putting your life at stake.   

#You can armor yourself and your friends and make and [[Coup d'etat|coup d'état]] attempt, a violent putsch as [[Bolshevik]]s did in [[Revolution of 1917|1917]]. This is however associated with putting your life at stake.   

#The second option is to campaign before democratic elections in order to win the majority of voters, and then change the law in parliament. However, who has been in [[politics]] knows well how difficult it is to convince the public opinion.

#The second option is to campaign before [[democratic]] [[elections]] in order to win the majority of voters, and then change the [[law]] in [[parliament]]. However, who has been in [[politics]] knows well how difficult it is to convince the [[public opinion]].

#Last decades show that the easiest way to implement a revolution goes through the courts. You can only be a small group. You can even be completely alone. But if you have "your people" at the supreme court of the country, people who think like you, you have won. The court decides and the majority of citizens who firmly disagree with the ruling cannot help it. This is called judicial activism. Those who do not use napkins in front of their mouths speak also of judicial imperialism.<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Vladimír Palko<ref name="Palko2009">{{cite journal |title=Revolucionári v talároch (Revolutionaries in gowns) |author=Vladimír Palko |journal=Impulz |issue=4 |volume=2009 |url=http://www.impulzrevue.sk/article.php?515 |quote=Ak chcete uskutočniť revolúciu, od základu zmeniť spoločnosť a prevrátiť jej hodnoty hore nohami, máte tri možnosti. Môžete vyzbrojiť seba a svojich spoločníkov a urobiť násilný prevrat. Boľševici tak urobili v roku 1917 v Rusku. Samozrejme, môžete pri tom prísť o život. Druhá možnosť je agitovať, získavať hlasy, vo voľbách získať väčšinu, a potom zmeniť zákony v parlamente. Pravda, kto bol v politike, vie, ako ťažko sa získava väčšina. Posledných päťdesiat rokov ukazuje, že najschodnejšia cesta uskutočnenia revolúcie ide cez súdy. Môžete byť iba malou skupinkou. Môžete byť dokonca úplne sám. Ak máte na najvyššom súde krajiny „svojich ľudí“, ľudí, ktorí rozmýšľajú ako vy, máte vyhraté. Súd rozhodne a väčšina občanov, ktorá s rozhodnutím bytostne nesúhlasí, si nepomôže. Toto sa nazýva súdnym aktivizmom. Tí, čo si nedávajú servítok pred ústa, tiež hovoria o súdnom imperializme. ...Kolískou súdneho aktivizmu sú Spojené štáty americké. |accessdate=9 Jul 2016 |language=Slovak}}</ref></div>

#Last decades show that the easiest way to implement a revolution goes through the courts. You can only be a [[interest group|small group]]. You can even be completely alone. But if you have "your people" at the [[supreme court]] of the country, people who think like you, you have won. The court decides and the majority of citizens who firmly disagree with the ruling cannot help it. This is called judicial activism. Those who do not use napkins in front of their mouths speak also of judicial [[imperialism]].<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Vladimír Palko<ref name="Palko2009">{{cite journal |title=Revolucionári v talároch (Revolutionaries in gowns) |author=Vladimír Palko |journal=Impulz |issue=4 |volume=2009 |url=http://www.impulzrevue.sk/article.php?515 |quote=Ak chcete uskutočniť revolúciu, od základu zmeniť spoločnosť a prevrátiť jej hodnoty hore nohami, máte tri možnosti. Môžete vyzbrojiť seba a svojich spoločníkov a urobiť násilný prevrat. Boľševici tak urobili v roku 1917 v Rusku. Samozrejme, môžete pri tom prísť o život. Druhá možnosť je agitovať, získavať hlasy, vo voľbách získať väčšinu, a potom zmeniť zákony v parlamente. Pravda, kto bol v politike, vie, ako ťažko sa získava väčšina. Posledných päťdesiat rokov ukazuje, že najschodnejšia cesta uskutočnenia revolúcie ide cez súdy. Môžete byť iba malou skupinkou. Môžete byť dokonca úplne sám. Ak máte na najvyššom súde krajiny „svojich ľudí“, ľudí, ktorí rozmýšľajú ako vy, máte vyhraté. Súd rozhodne a väčšina občanov, ktorá s rozhodnutím bytostne nesúhlasí, si nepomôže. Toto sa nazýva súdnym aktivizmom. Tí, čo si nedávajú servítok pred ústa, tiež hovoria o súdnom imperializme. ...Kolískou súdneho aktivizmu sú Spojené štáty americké. |accessdate=9 Jul 2016 |language=Slovak}}</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=http://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.  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.