Introduction The constitution is the highest authority in many nations of the world including Australia and should be adhered to the latter. The judicial systems of these nations respect the constitution. However, in some situations, interpretation of the law is vital as some laws are ambiguous or absent. This essay shows that it is legitimate for the judges in Australia to engage in judicial activism. Judicial activism Judicial activism is the philosophy indicating that in some cases, judges should be allowed to construe the constitution in such a way that it reflects contemporary conditions and values. Liberalism, which is a belief in expanding the power of the government by construing the constitution broadly in order for it to be used to exact issues, supports this (Magleby). Judicial activism occurs in a case when a judge decides on a case that is based on political or personal ideology or by giving in to pressure from special interests instead of sticking to the previous guide or the constitution. In a system with a separation of power, judicial activism disregards it and makes a new regulation that affects the country wholly instead of settling a specific case being tried (Holetzky, par. 1). In the government systems of many nations of the world, legislation is never done by the judiciary because it is not elected but only appointed. Therefore when judicial activism occurs, this can be referred to as the usurpation of power meaning that justice overrides the court’s jurisdiction or does create a judgment that diverges from jurisprudence, common law and generally the constitution. It can include a case whereby judges override existing laws or make certain doctrines legal without any support or precedent. This situation recreates or undermines policy (in most cases social policy) (Holetzky, par. 2). Some cases cannot be heard through judicial activism. This is because they are not addressed in the constitution. A good example is an abortion or same-sex marriages that can only be decided by the people and the states otherwise they have to be included first in the constitution so that judicial activism can be applied (Holetzky par. 3-4). The Common Law in Australia This common law is used in several countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, India, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Common law is the system of law that was developed in England. It contradicts the system that was derived from the Roman law (often regarded as the civil law) that is operational in South America, Europe, and Japan. In the UK, judges who operated in the courts that had been created by the king established common law. The reason why it is referred to as the common law is because it established one law that was common to the entire British kingdom. The law was set by King William who together with the chief landowners wanted to strengthen their hold on the kingdom to run it smoothly (Craig, par. 1-3). In the separation of power principle, the judiciary should always be independent of both the legislature and the executive. However in the Common law system, the judges make sure that the laws that have been made by the legislature have been obeyed. However, when new situations arise and values undergo a change, j