Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism

We are at a Crossroads in the Rule of Law. Do we defend the law from tyrants and dictators, especially in democratic elections, by protecting the concept of the Law as Sovereign? In doing so, do we defend long-standing values and protections? And, how do we defend those long-standing values and protections? To protect the Rule of Law, do we invoke Judicial Restraint OR Judicial Activism? Or, do we invoke BOTH Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism? If we choose between Restraint OR Activism, we promote conflict between the two, causing Extremism to flourish; but if we use BOTH Restraint and Activism, we will be promoting Moderation. And Moderation works against the Extremism that leads to the authoritarian tyrants and dictatorships that are growing worldwide. We in the law must defend democracy and liberty. That means the Law is Sovereign. We in the Law must defend what is Right, what should be Protected. We will defend the wisdom of Law as Sovereign that the Magna Carta gave to not only protect all of us, but to empower us personally, and as part of the Citizenry.