what is meant by the term "judicial activism"?

Answer 1

"Judicial activism" is code language for interpretations of laws that displease conservatives. And if George W. Bush gets his way with certain court appointments, in a while it will apply instead to displeasing liberals.

There is no real evidence of "judicial activism" in most of the historically-controversial actions of the US Supreme Court. There is evidence that outraged partisans think so. This is behind a number of attempts lately to amend the US Constitution, amendments intended to be restricive and divisive, justified on the gounds that "judicial activists" threaten the country.

Complete hogwash.

Answer 2

In the US, it means judges handing down decisions that agree with or advance some political agenda. This accusation is usually made by conservatives about the judiciary and overlook two important facts:
1) They don't explain how it's not possible for a conservative judge who hands down decisions that agree with conservative ideals, to be an "activist".
2) If the Republicans control the White House (for the last 6 years), which makes judicial appointments at the federal level, and Republicans control the congress (since the mid-90's) which approves the nominees - how can the judiciary be handing down all these "liberal" decisions through activist judges?

Answer 3

I think essentially judicial activism refers to when a judge, or group of judges, make a ruling based not on the language or original intent of the law, but based on bringing about what they perceive to be a desired outcome. One of the big problems with judicial activism is that it steals the votes of the people by overriding the will of their elected officials. Another problem is that when a judge can twist the words of a constitution, state or national, to mean whatever he or she wants it to mean, the words become meaningless: the judge will have become an unelected lawmaker. Finally, I think that if judges can create "rights" out of thin air by ruling according to their preferences or prejudices, they can take away very real rights just as easily. Does this help?

Answer 4

It's when judges try to make new law (or unduly expand existing law) instead of interpreting existing law.

For example, if your legislature passes a law regarding the use of a car. An activist judge might say, "Well, I will apply this law to boats, as well."

Not a great example, but the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

Answer 5

It refers to judges passing judgement according to their own personal beliefs and agendas regardless of what the true law states.