Topic: We should limit judicial activism
judicial activism provides a limited view of procedure
judicial activism provides a place for discussion
judicial activism provides an important means for reconsidering poorly constructed legislation
judicial activism provides for discussion and dissention
judicial activism puts too much power in the hands of the court, offsetting the checks and balances system.
judicial activism relies too heavily upon personal opinion and leads to bias.
judicial activism should be allowed to continue as its important judges are given free reign to do what they want.
judicial activism should be banned because a judge is supposed uphold laws that are already written & not go off on his/her own impulses
judicial activism should be limited and the laws followed.
judicial activism should be limited as judges should stick to their job and not try to grandstand on issues to gain popularity.
judicial activism should be limited as there are basic reasons why a law was put in place and a single judge should not be able to choose to ignore the basic law.
Judicial activism should be limited as there should be enough statutes of law to allow for most situations and fixed punishments are more acceptable than an individuals response to a case.
judicial activism should be limited because a judge should not be making all decisions.
judicial activism should be limited because it doesn't apply any laws at all.
judicial activism should be limited because it is the job of the legislative and executive branches of government to write laws.
judicial activism should be limited because law making is best done by the legislative and executive branches of government
judicial activism should be limited because sometimes the judge is likely to use his person opinion instead of what should be the law
judicial activism should be limited if judges are biased and rule on their own beliefs and its not in the interest of the country or needs of modern day society
judicial activism should be limited in order to keep personal opinions out of rulings
judicial activism should be limited or altogether removed based on the fact that it is done from a feeling or thought rather than from the law
judicial activism should be limited since it could not be used as precedence for future rulings as there would be too many possibilities
judicial activism should be limited so that judgements are reached based on factual evidence only. allowing personal opinions to cloud the issue can result in mis-trials of justice.
judicial activism should be limited to avoid violence among the opposition.
judicial activism should be limited to the facts of the case rather than the prejudices of each judge otherwise there are different rules for different people which is not justice.
judicial activism should be supported because is followed by judges who knows what the law is and they understand the law more than us.
Judicial activism should not be allowed since it is based on opinion rather than law.
judicial activism should not be limited as each situation has unique aspects.