Pros and Cons

Cons
1. It gives judges a personal voice to fight unjust issues.
Through judicial activism, judges can use their own personal feelings to strike down laws that they would feel are unjust. Whether it
is an executive order, an immigration issue or a criminal proceeding, judges would have a good vantage point in deciding a certain
cases outcome.

2. It would allow people to vote judges off the bench.

Many local judges are elected to the bench, which means that if they rule in a way that people disagree consistently, they can be
voted off on the next cycle. However, some judges might serve up to 15 years from a single election, so this benefit might have
some limitations to it.

3. It places trust in judges.

Judges oath of bringing justice to the country does not change with judicial activism, which allows them to do what they see fit
within reasonable limits. The reason why this is a good thing is that it shows the instilled trust placed in the justice system and its
judgments.

4. It has its own system of checks and balances.

Even if a judge decided and ruled that certain law is unjust, it can still be actually overruled with an appeal to another court, even to
the Supreme Court. In some cases, a state affair would start before a local judge and be appealed to the Supreme Court. It would
also transition into a federal case, so it would be heard multiple times before a final resolution.

Cons

1. It does not apply any law.

When this type of judicial system is employed, it would seem that the laws do not apply, where judges can override any law that
exists, which technically means there are no laws before their eyes.

2. Its rulings would eventually become final.

Judicial activism becomes a more profound subject for those who serve on the Supreme Court, as their rulings generally stand. With
the power to have the final say on matters, their judicial opinions would also become standards for ruling on other cases. For
example, when parts of the Defense of Marriage Act were struck down, many other judges also ruled that same sex marriage is
permitted. Whether you feel these actions are good or bad, it occurred due to activism.

Pros and Cons

Cons
3. It might be influenced by personal affairs.
When judicial activism is exercised, it is often done for solely personal and selfish reasons, like one that might be political or one
where a judge has received compensation for his judgment. Most likely, laws will be overruled when there is personal objection to
them involved. For example, a fundamental Christian judge might rule that protest restriction laws against abortion clinics are
constitutional, or a proponent judge could strike down a ban on abortion when passed. Often times, judicial activism has become
predictable simply because people already know about the one who is ruling the case.

5. It appoints, rather than elects, judges.

Under judicial activism, many ruling judges are not elected, but rather appointed by government officials, which means that people in
a region would not have any say as to how they want local judges to rule. In some cases, this system is taxation without
representation, as money from taxpayers would go to support the judges salaries, while ruling based upon personal desires rather
than what the local citizens want to see.