I don't even grant users of judicial activism as a term any level of respect or historical context. It's VASTLY used in the United States by individuals who not only have no understanding of the differences between a pure Democracy and a Democratic Republic but a deeply flawed concept of what the Judicial branch's powers are. It's like they don't know what checks and balances is.
I am VERY much for gay marriage and I hope for the opportunity in the future here in California to volunteer for work on that front depending on how the appeals go for the Prop 8 trial.
If by judicial activism you mean a proper position of originalism and strict construction then that doesn't either have to unreasoned or rabidly democratic. One can certainly find it expressed historically in the US by many diverse figures.
Checks and balances can be used and set up in various ways, it is certainly a valid idea of judiciary that they not be able to widely reinterpret laws and constitutional clauses. Indeed in Britain if a court ruled something illegal or unconstitutional parliament could simply overrule this by changing the law.
Last edited: