Topic: We should limit judicial activism
it is not fair because a judge puts his or her won believes over the letter of the law.
it is not fair for opinion to overrule when there are so many different ones.
it is unavoidable due to thehuman nature of those involved in the justice system
it should be limited because it negatively impacts voters
it should be limited because sometimes they just don't like the person and that isn't fair
it should be used, some laws are old and not needed now so when a judge can use his/her own judgement it can work out best.
it would and should not be used for people to be treated fairly
it would help court cases be more fair to the people being sued.
it’s unconstitutional as justice shouldn’t be based on someone’s sole opinion
judges are elected because of their ethics and morals, so there is no need to limit judicial activism.
judges are going to use their beliefs to interpret laws and we shouldn't limit that once they are elected, we should understand their views before electing them.
judges are human are are allowed to interpret the law when giving a ruling.
judges are in a position to make a positive change in the world, and should be encouraged to use activism to do so
judges are supposed to remain impartial and unbiased, activism is the opposite of that
judges are there to enforce the law, not their own opinions.
judges are to base decisions on the laws of the country not on their personal beliefs.  when a judge puts his bias to a case it can change laws and not support the rights of the individual.
judges are uniquely qualified to make decisions they feel are best
judges are voted in to be impartial and base their decisions on the current laws on the books. they should not be able to alter laws. that is the role of the congress.
judges by definition are supposed to be impartial. having activist judges defeats the purpose
judges can sometimes overstep their powers
judges have discretion to rule how they feel is correct
judges ignoring the law to make their own rulings could damage the whole judicial process.
judges know the law - if they think it needs overriding they're probably right
judges making laws violates their constitutional duty.
judges must be allowed to interept the law how they see fit for the given circumstances
judges should be able to determine a crime or ruling based on the common sense and authoritarian standing regarding the total circumstances of an issue.
judges should be able to give the sentence they feel is the best
judges should be allowed to interpret the law
judges should be impartial arbiters of the law and should not be asserting their political views.
judges should be limited to upholding law rather than making it. that job is politicians.
judges should be neutral and fact-driven when deciding a case, not basing their verdict on their personal beliefs.
judges should do what they feel is right in accordance with their view on the law and should not be limited
judges should follow the law not their opinion
judges should follow the letter of the law and not their bias.
judges should follow the letter of the law when making rulings and not make up things based on how they feel.