Judicial activism is a fancy term that essentially means a judge or justice uses their power in a court case to change policy for an agenda they believe in. That could mean overturning a court case, changing the law’s interpretation, or reinterpreting the United States Constitution to mean something new.

The Left is continually pushing for judicial activism in leftist appointments to the court system. They believe it is the role of a judge or justice to culturally change society and policy from the bench alongside those passing Congress laws. They believe so strongly in this philosophy of judicial activism that they automatically expect any nominee to a federal court to practice it–which is precisely what we’ve seen play out in the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett embodies a judicial philosophy of constitutionalism, which in simple terms means she interprets the law and the law of the land, the US Constitution, as it is written and not through some activist lens. Sometimes, that means she has to make a judicial ruling against what she believes in because of the law’s status. She has no policy agenda on a judicial bench but instead hopes to retain a politically independent judiciary.

The Left doesn’t believe her when she shares her constitutionalist perspective. Instead, ACB is being grilled for her opinion on nearly every policy issue under the sun: climate change, slavery reparations, government-run healthcare, and abortion, just to name a few.
By merely assuming ACB will rule with her policy opinions above all gives us a unique perspective to understand the Left’s goal in judicial appointments–they desire activism, just not from conservative justices.

An independent judiciary is a key to maintaining the American way of life. It’s time to halt judicial activism in its tracks and instead embrace our bench as the Founding Fathers intended it.