no, you're trying to stretch concepts past the breaking point to fit a desired narrative. the judiciary isn't a parallel lawmaking body. the legislation has co

no, you're trying to stretch concepts past the breaking point to fit a desired narrative. the judiciary isn't a parallel lawmaking body. the legislation has corrective oversight of judiciary interpretation (outside of consitutional issues). that the legislature only exercises their oversight selectively inconsistent to your wishes is not a judicial issue. also, "judicial activism" is a loaded term. the judiciary is doing exactly and only what it's tasked to do--interpret law against the backdrop of the constitition; it's not a bug if you disagree with its decisions.