I asked the question in anotehr thread and none of the conservative thinkers responded, so let me try again.

 

The GOP has been complaining about "activist" Judges. Judges that rule laws they like as unconstiutional.

 

That is our (Publics) safety net, our protection from Congress making laws that are unconstitutional. The Judges are working within the framework of our constitution.

 

If not Judges, how would you protect the Public? What check and balance would you use?

It is CRUCIAL that the judges that are appointed IMO be strictly "constitutionalist" in nature, meaning that they interpret through the eyes of the constitution only. Everything must hold to that standard.

 

Too often, now, we are dealing with things that makes the judges effectively re-write the laws by their interpretation. That's what folks mean by "activist judges" and that sets a dangerous precedence because as you duly note, it changes the balance of powers.

 

To directly answer your question, you don't protect the public any other way, you have to do it within the framework set forth in the Constitution. It's vital that interpretations do not slant toward personal or political bias.

 

Easier said then done nowadays with the issues at hand.

Activist judges are those who make rulings you don't like

I asked the question in anotehr thread and none of the conservative thinkers responded, so let me try again.

 

The GOP has been complaining about "activist" Judges. Judges that rule laws they like as unconstiutional.

 

That is our (Publics) safety net, our protection from Congress making laws that are unconstitutional. The Judges are working within the framework of our constitution.

 

If not Judges, how would you protect the Public? What check and balance would you use?

You are interpretting activist judges the wrong way. They are supposed to interpret laws and say if they stand up to consitution muster, not to tell congressional delegations what laws they need to pass.