What is Judicial Activism?

The terms "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" describe how a judge judges, that is,
how he applies the law to facts in the cases before him. The difference is that
restrained judges take the law as it is and activist judges make up the law as they go along.

Restrained judges respect the political process, whether they agree with its results or
not, until it clearly crosses a clear constitutional line. Activist judges feel free to re-write
statutes or the Constitution, to use extra-legal factors in their decisions, to ignore limits
on their power in the search for desirable results.

"Judicial Restraint" is the same as the "judgement" that Alexander Hamilton said should
guide judges, while "judicial activism" is the same as the "will" that Hamilton said should
not guide judges. Others have defined it similarly:

Senate Republican Conference Resolution (1997):
Be it resolved, that the Republican Conference opposes judicial activism, whereby
life-tenured unaccountable judges exceed their constitutional role of interpreting already
enacted, written law, and instead legislate from the bench by imposing their personal
preferences or view

Read More