Judicial activism is a philosophy of judicial decision making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Detractors of judicial activism charge that it usurps the power of the elected branches of government or appointed agencies, damaging the rule of law and democracy. Defenders of judicial activism say that in many cases it is a legitimate form of judicial review, and that the interpretation of the law must change with changing times. A third view is that so-called 'objective' interpretation of the law does not exist. According to law professor Brian Z. Tamanaha, 'Throughout the so-called formalist age, it turns out, many prominent judges and jurists acknowledged that there were gaps and uncertainties in the law and that judges must sometimes make choices.'

Directions: Consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply.
According to the passage, critics opine that judicial activism:

(A) Leads to proper legal analysis.
(B) Helps in objective interpretation of the law.
(C) Is detrimental to democracy.



In the context of the passage, usurps most nearly means:

(A) Seizes
(D) Advocates
(B) Abjures
(E) Confuses
(C) Conjures



3. Select the sentence that indicates what the defenders of judicial activism base their argument on.