Topic: We should limit judicial activism
a few loud mouths should not be able to change years of law
a judge allowing their own personal feelings to become involved in a ruling cause said ruling to be unfair.
a judge is a credible voted in individual whose decisions should be trusted.
a judge is merely supposed to interpret whether legal issues are constitutional -- judicial activism is effectively legislating from the bench, which exceeds what the judicial branch is allowed to do.
a judge is not god and therefore should not make all of the decisions.
a judge is suppose to be held in a high regard and should abide by the laws they took an oath to uphold without bias.
a judge is suppose to uphold the rule of law, not alter it with their own opinions/views/beliefs.
a judge should be allowed to determine the constitutionality of an argument by using their own beliefs in part.
a judge shouldnt be able to show their personal views.
a judges opinion should not be relevant in a decision that they make as a judge
a judge's opinion should not take precedent over official laws.
a judge's role is not to flaunt laws and override guidance but to enforce it. judicial activism is a step too far
a jusge should be allowed to look at a crime and the situation the person was subjected to in regards to their acts as the punishment should be determined in regards to an individual situation.
a jusge should be allowed to make decisions based on certain situations and circumstances and make judgement using the information and issues presented rather than a strict generalized standard.
a jusge should follow the law rather than opnion as they are regarded as the highest power to judicate the laws they honor to serve and uphold.
a range of opinions may be better than  facts.
a single judge cannot be granted free rein to bypass laws borne from democratic process
activism often leads to corruption in the judicial system
activist judges are an important part of bringing about legislative change
activists judges aren't the ones shaping the laws. they're not "all" the people for who the laws are voted for. judicial activism has to be limited to only check for overuse of the power by governments
all avenues should be looked at, not just the supposedly straight forward.
all judges should be allowed to practice judicial activism if the situation calls for it and nothing else would work.
allowing personal feelings and opions can skew legal judgements in ways they would otherwise go when only relying on the facts.
basing decisions based on a personal opinion is unfair in all cases
certain miscarriages of justice can only be rectified by judges practicing judicial activism
check-balancing government use of power in a democracy is what makes democracy the better governing form. judicial activism will limit government overuse of its power
corrupted judges could be using this activism too much to block vital projects just for their own profit
courts are the way average people can access justice - judges have the power to right wrongs.