A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Judicial activism is a philosophy of how judges make decisions. It means that judges use their personal beliefs about public policy and other factors to guide their decisions. This often leads to finding constitutional violations and ignoring previous court decisions. The opposite of judicial activism is judicial restraint, which means judges limit their decisions to the law and previous court decisions.

Example: A judge who practices judicial activism might rule that a law is unconstitutional because they believe it violates a person's right to privacy, even if there is no clear constitutional violation. This judge might also ignore previous court decisions that support the law.

Explanation: This example illustrates how a judge who practices judicial activism might use their personal beliefs to guide their decision-making. They might interpret the law in a way that supports their beliefs, even if it goes against previous court decisions or the plain language of the law. This can lead to controversy and criticism, as some people believe judges should limit their decisions to the law and not their personal beliefs.