Judicial Activism can be described as judicial ruling that is suspected as being based on personal or political considerations rather than the law. The question of judicial activism is a broadly interpreted political debate, and is closely related to constitutional interpretation and separation of powers. When one refers to a judge as “activist”, they are making a claim that the judge is ruling according to his or her own beliefs, rather than accordance with the law as per the constitution. So the question becomes, “how does one counter judicial activism?”
This problem seems to stem from the role of the judiciary. Many people believe that a judge should not have to worry about politics or public opinion. Instead, a judge should be focused on upholding the law, without regarding their popularity in accordance to their ultimate decision.
Due to the fact that federal judges are appointed, not elected, many Americans have no idea who these people are, what they are doing, or what they stand for. In order to keep judicial activism at bay, individuals need to stay in the know about the countries judiciary system. And since court decisions are recorded and publicized, keeping an eye on the current events within the United States’ ever changing judicial system will allow the public to be sure that court rulings are being decided in accordance with the law.