Evaluate the view that judicial activism is superior to judicial restraint.

(1) Point against my view

• Judicial activism allows the judiciary to adapt to evolving societal norms and values, ensuring that the law remains relevant and just in changing circumstances.

(1) Example for point against my view

• Bostock v Clayton County 2020

(1) Point for my view

• Judicial restraint upholds the principle of separation of powers by limiting the judiciary's role to interpreting laws rather than creating them. Activism risks encroaching upon the domain of the legislative branch, undermining the democratic process and checks and balances.

(1) Example for point for my view

• The SC's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), upholding the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a tax rather than under the Commerce Clause, demonstrated judicial restraint by deferring to Congress's taxing power.

(2) Point against my view

• Activist judges are often more inclined to protect the rights of minorities and marginalized groups. They can intervene to prevent discrimination and ensure equal treatment under the law, even in cases where legislatures may be slow to act or biased.

(2) Example for point against my view

• Obergefell v Hodges 2015

(2) Point for my view

• Restraint ensures that contentious social issues are resolved through the democratic process rather than through judicial fiat, preserving democratic principles and accountability.

(2) Example for point for my view

• The SC's refusal to intervene in political gerrymandering cases, such as Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), underscores the importance of preserving democracy by leaving such matters to the political process rather than judicial intervention.

(3) Point against my view

• Activist judges can fill gaps in legislation or address issues that lawmakers have overlooked, ensuring that the legal system remains comprehensive and effective.

(3) Example for point against my view

• In cases involving emerging technologies and privacy concerns, such as Carpenter v. United States (2018), where the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless acquisition of cell phone location data violates the Fourth Amendment, judicial activism fills legal gaps to protect individual privacy rights in the digital age.

(3) Point for my view

• Activist judges may overstep their bounds by making decisions that exceed the scope of their authority or infringe upon the responsibilities of other branches of government. Restraint helps prevent judicial overreach and maintains the proper balance of power envisioned by the framers of the constitution.

(3) Evidence for point for my view

• Trump v Anderson