Judges who practice what their critics call “judicial activism” argue that judges (Points : 1)

have a responsibility to protect individual rights and liberties.
have a responsibility to be anti-majoritarian because democracy is not always a good thing.
should ask what was the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights when they framed our civil liberties.
are all powerful and their judgment is superior to the judgment of the people.

What do you think the answer is?

Judges who practice what their critics call "judicial activism" argue that judges have a responsibility to protect individual rights and liberties. One way to understand this is by looking at the role of judges in interpreting and applying the law.

When faced with a legal dispute, judges are tasked with interpreting and applying the laws to the specific case before them. In this process, judges may consider a variety of factors, including legal precedent, the language and intent of legislation, and the values and principles underlying the law.

Proponents of judicial activism argue that judges should actively interpret the law in a way that protects individual rights and liberties. They believe that judges should not solely rely on the explicit language of the law or the original intent of the lawmakers, but should instead consider the broader implications and societal context when deciding cases. By doing so, judges can ensure that the law is applied in a manner that promotes justice and protects the rights of individuals, even in cases where the law might be unclear or outdated.

Critics of judicial activism, on the other hand, often argue that judges should strictly adhere to the text and original intent of the law. They believe that judges should not have the power to "legislate from the bench" and that decisions should be left to elected representatives who are more directly accountable to the people. They may view judicial activism as an overreach of judicial authority, suggesting that judges should not make decisions based on their personal beliefs or policy preferences, but rather should defer to the will of the majority.

In summary, judges who practice what critics call "judicial activism" argue that judges have a responsibility to protect individual rights and liberties, even if it means going beyond the explicit language or original intent of the law. This perspective is grounded in the belief that judges play a crucial role in ensuring justice and safeguarding the rights of individuals within our legal system.