Topic: We should limit judicial activism
sometimes judges take more discretionary room than they should. some consider this undemocratic, which is why we should limit it.
sometimes judicial activism is necessary to curb the attempt at unconstitutional laws
sometimes judicial activism is the only way to accurately rule a case and should be allowed to carry on
sometimes judicial activism needs to be used when the law doesn’t protect victims.
sometimes laws are not  fair at all because they simply serve special interests. judicial activism can stand to such unfairness.
sometimes people can end up in jail because the law says they should be, even if they didn’t intentionally commit a crime, and in these cases judicial activism is necessary.
sometimes politics becomes so corrupt and untenable, that the only way to make change in the country is through judicial activism.
sometimes special circumstances should allow for a judge to use their own discretion on occasion.
sometimes the law defends the criminal and allows them to get away with their crime. in this case, personal opinions may also need to be applied.
sometimes the laws of the lands contradict a justified action.
sometimes we need judicial activism to be allowed because some cases have so many nuances that following the letter of the law would be a travesty to justice for the people involved.
the constitiutional law is outdated and judges should rule more on their beliefs
the human is free of think and act for universalr rigths have
the judicial decides the best laws for the state
the judicial system requires independence, judicial activists undermine this independence and the practice should be limited.
the judiciary are independent people, activism is detrimental to this independence as it impacts on judicial neutrality
the judiciary have as much right to be activists as anybody else
the judiciary helps provide checks and balances and should grant itself an expanded role to counterbalance the effects of transient majoritarianism.
the judiciary was only originally intended to review laws, not make them via activism
the law has to be interpreted and enforced as is following the constitution. judicial activism would undermines that.
the only way to make laws work better is to contest them.
the person's opinion could be accurate
the rule of law has many loop holes, judicial activism offers an opportunity for some of those holes to be patched
the rulings offer a precedent and will become final, despite it potentially overriding any laws.
the wisdom and experience of a judge should be part of the justice system so that each judge brings their vast knowledge to bear on any given case to help them  get the best outcome.
there are too many judges that do not do the right thing.
there are too many rulings in this country that shows judges base their rulings based on personal opinion and not the facts.   it's time we do something to limit judicial activism.
there should be limits as personal views can end up giving a biased decision.
there should be no limits.  how are we to move forward in society if we limit the thought process of judges?