Which approach do you side the most with?

Question

Okay so this is a topic that I think hasn’t been posted yet, or at least recently here.
Now during my college course, we learned about the difference between Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint. Judicial Activism means that judges can interpret the laws in a modernized way; an updated way that fits with the times.
Judicial Restraint means that the judges have to determine the laws exactly how they were written in the first place. 
Here is a screenshot explaining the differences further.

A good example of Judicial Activism would be the Roe v Wade hearing. The judges stepped up & deemed it unconstitutional to criminalize abortion. ‼️FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THIS TOPIC ISNT ABOUT ABORTION SO DONT MAKE IT ABOUT THAT‼️
A good example of judicial Restraint would be the 1824 case Gibbon v Gidgdon. The Supreme Court ruled that congress alone has the power to regulate interstate commerce. 
So my question is, do you side more with judicial Activism? Or judicial Restraint?
My personal opinion is that Judicial Activism is the better philosophy to go by, because the human mind is always changing & going by one way of thinking all the time is hindering progress.

Answer

I lean towards judicial restraint. I think leaving it in the hands of an individual—even an elected official—to flexibly interpret the law could lead towards inconsistent application of the laws and emotion affecting the rulings. If we don’t like current laws or think they need updated, we should work to have them changed to improve them.

Answer

Wow this is a terrifying poll. The judicial branch should absolutely not be interpreting law as they see fit. That was NOT what they were meant to do if you look in the constitution. In fact, the fact they do is scary becAuse we have an unelected group of people who can never be voted out making decisions. The judicial branch is not accountable to the public and thus them making law is undemocratic. 
The elected legislature is supposed to make the law. They should be passing “gay marriage” laws and other laws that have much of the public support, not the court. But alas, the legislature is now pretty much useless.

Answer

Judicial Restraint. I feel like judicial activism would get taken advantage of and used wrongly far too often. The purpose they shouldn’t override something UNLESS it’s unconstitutional.

Answer

I am definitely not well versed in legal terms, but from reading this I would say I lean more towards Judicial Restraint. My reason would be because it seems to be the route that most adheres to the written laws. The way I read Judicial Activism, it seems to put more responsibility in the hands of the judge to decide what is ‘fair’, and I am not sure I like the idea that the law can be defined how a judge feels on that day. It seems like it could be more of an emotional decision then a legal one, and could potentially be less fair for some because it seems to allow for biases to be part of the decision making. That is just how I read the information but I am happy to discuss.

Answer

Restraint.

Answer

Restraint for the most part.  That why we have a separation of powers.  If the judicial system makes and judges the laws there is no longer a balance.  Too much room for corruption and unjust rulings.

Answer

I think its important to go with the intent of the law as much as possible not the literal translation of it. For example, language has changed over the past 300 years so you have to find the definition of a word from when it was written not what it is now. Emoluments is a great example. It means something different now than when it was written.

Answer

i lean towards activism. thats why we have common law. so the law can be ever changing. so the legal system can evolve over time with current culture.

Answer

I prefer restraint, otherwise a judge can just decide what's "right" or should be based on his/her views not the law. And federal judges are for life so one highly active judge can screw up things for a long time. I don't agree that roe vs Wade was activism entirely. If you go by some of the opinions of the justices then it's seems like activism, but the end judgement was not. The govt was not specifically given power to  allow or disallow abortion therefore it's left to the people. 
The courts are not for de facto legislation or stepping in for whatever a judge thinks Congress should do. They are mandated to be fair under the law not fair determined by a judge.