Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law.
Judges expand on or invent erroneous precedents to give legal status to their preferred outcomes.
Judges strain the plain text to achieve their apparent desired ends, bending terms to the point of breaking.
Unable to justify their conclusion with U.S. law, judges turn to international law to justify their preferred outcome.
Judges mischaracterize the facts or emphasize selective facts to support a desired result.
Judges expand the power of the judiciary beyond its constitutional limits.
Judges rely on the so-called Living Constitution to make the Constitution comport with their self-described enlightened sensibilities.
Judges abolish the protection of established rights to which they are personally opposed.
Judges elevate personal sympathy for a litigant above the requirements of law.
Judges weigh policy considerations above the requirements of law.