Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

Multiple times, we have discussed the ideologies of judicial restraint and judicial activism on the Supreme Court affecting cases and therefore the lives of the people. Many judges have practiced judicial activism in important cases, setting precedent by overruling or allowing laws by questioning their Constitutional validity. One example is Roe vs. Wade, which struck down a law in Texas that would have stopped a woman from receiving an abortion unless the monther's life was at risk. This is seen as preserving woman's rights, just as many other judicial activism cases are seen as preserving the rights of minority groups whose ideas are not represented in Congress or the executive branch. (https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/judicial-activism-supreme-court-decisions) However, the counterargument is that the Supreme Court is the least democratic branch and therefore can easily use judicial activism to push their personal agenda, regardless of majority wishes. In the end, it seems important for at least one branch of government to be able to respond to the voice of the minority and therefore be able to preserve their rights. In the end, judicial activism should continue to be used, but judges need be well picked (both by the president and by the Senate's review of them) to make sure that they will not abuse their power. Another part of this is making sure that the public's opinion of the new judge is heard during the appointment process. One example of this not happening is during Kavanaugh's appointment earlier in Trump's presidency. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2019/09/03/revisiting-public-opinion-on-the-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle/#592c42b12222). In the future, more care needs to be taken in ensuring the public's say in the justice's appointed, as these justices are then ensured the power to protect the public's rights, a power they should use.