| | '''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. |
| | 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> |