Topic: We should limit judicial activism
judicial activism should not be limited as judges should be allowed to use their full capailities, including personal opinions. it would be naive to suggest that anyone can reach a decision without doing so.
judicial activism should not be limited as times have changed, circumstances are vastly different, than a reason why an initial law was enacted.
judicial activism should not be limited because the judges know what they're doing.
judicial activism should not be part of the democratic process.
judicial activism shouldn’t be used in palace of laws.
judicial activism shouldn't be limited because it allows judges to rule in favor of the right thing regardless if the current laws are obstructing said behavior. this is essential for democracy.
judicial activism shouldn't be limited because it gives judges a personal voice to fight unjust issues.
judicial activism subverts the law and creates bias
judicial activism subverts the law and obstructs justice
judicial activism undermines the authority of the initial court process, is costly and time consumptive.
judicial activism undermines the rule of law
judicial activism underminines the legal process, since it corrodes the value of the initial court determination.
judicial activism violates the legislature's authority, endangering the coequal balance of the governmental branches.
judicial activism will allow  judicial rulings to be being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law.
judicial activism will bring forth new interpretations of the constitution and advance our society
judicial activism would allow for personal grievances to be accepted as truth
judicial activism,  bringing a personal touch of the judge,  is  the best way to apply laws and rules for our society.
judicial activists are incapable of being impartial.
judicial decisions should be based on the law of the lands.
judicial opininion can show effective common sense and reflect public opinion
judicial process  must  be based on facts and laws. no-one can allow their own beliefs/feelings to cloud their judgement with respect to the law, otherwise we might as well not have laws.
judicial review is a crucial fallback to monitor political activity
justice can not be subject to personal opinions
justice should not be used as a weapon for personal gain
law were written to be followed and aren't open to interpretation. we already have different levels that classify crimes and allow for different circumstances so there is no need for judicial activism.
laws are  made for a reason and judges shouldn't divert from the laws.
laws are heavily debated and voted upon in a democratic process. a single judge ought not hold the power to overrule this
laws are in place and it is only correct they are adhered to, despite what opinion says
laws are laws and judges should not let their personal opinions play a part.
laws are made to be followed and not changed to fit someone else's views.
laws are supposed to upheld by the supreme court and created by the government not by local judges who want to change a system to suit themselves.