Topic: We should limit judicial activism
judges should have the right to impose whatever rulings they want after hearing arguments on both sides of an issue.
judges should help the nation move forward through their rulings
judges should judge case by case and not by their personal beliefs
judges should not let their biases come into play when making judicial decisions; they should adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution.
judges should not overturn another court's decision based only on his or her personal beliefs about the matter before them.
judges should rely on the law and not on their own personal feelings.
judges should rule on the law not make law
judges should stick to hearing cases and leave their activism in their private lives
judges should stick to the law and be unbiased in every ruling.
judges voted in by the people have the credibility to make fair and impartial decisions.
judges who join activism lose the essence of their profession
judges who rule based on their own personal and political beliefs usurp the power of our elected officials and are violating our constitutional rights,
judicial activism  is very important to prevent corruption
judicial activism allows a judge to give an opinion which is true to their beliefs.
judicial activism allows a judge to use his or her personal judgment at times when the law fails.
judicial activism allows court authorities to mandate changes in behavior without passing legislation through a governing body.  judicial authorities are knowledgeable and can decisions that benefit us all.
judicial activism allows for a black and white law to be applied to the grey area that exists in real life situations the law doesn’t account for
judicial activism allows for a check on decrees made by one branch of the government that may think that drastic action is needed for every situation.
judicial activism allows for common sense to be applied where necessary
judicial activism allows for gray area in the otherwise black and white law
Judicial activism allows for the expertise and wisdom of the judge to be used in a given case, bringing all their knowledge to bear and making sure the punishment fits the crime.
judicial activism allows judges make a difference in public policy, by correcting unjust legislation
judicial activism allows judges to argue their own views instead of making decisions based on existing constitutional law.
judicial activism allows judges to exercise their own view  to provide a more personal interpretation of the evidence.
judicial activism allows judges to play a legislative role which destroys the balance of power inherent to our form of government
judicial activism allows jurisprudence to stay up with the times, as the constitutional framers could not have anticipated every situation confronting our society.
judicial activism allows lawful recourse in circumstances of possible justice miscarriages, and is an extra protection against possible corruption and obstructive 'influence' in the higher court.
judicial activism allows poorly or misconceived legislation to be reconsidered
judicial activism allows the judges flexibility in cases that are odd and not the norm.