Judicial activism

The phrases "judicial activism" and "activist judges" refer to judges who use their powers in a lawmaking capacity.

Judges frequently must interpret what the law actually says, but they are often accused of "judicial activism" if their interpretation seems to defy a common-sense reading of the law, especially if their rulings strike down or substantially revise laws passed by actual lawmakers. Some see this as a subversion of the democratic process, with a privileged few able to veto the people's elected representatives; others see such rulings as an important balance on lawmakers' power, preventing a tyranny of the majority.

Because interpreting law in a non-conventional way tends to upset the status quo, judicial activism is more likely to offend conservatives than liberals. Divisions can also break along partisan lines, as in the case of Bush v. Gore, which offended liberals.