Judges is more than just Judges, but it's a good part of the law, for they enforce the law.

Now if I make a contract with you, telling you that if you make a device for me, and when you have made ten thousand of them and transport them to me, you get paid... you would expect payment when you arrive. A contract is a contract right?

And if I said no, and worse, when you said you will sue, I shot you dead, you (in the afterlife) would expect that the law would be applied to me right?

What if no one enforced the contract, or prosecuted me for murder?

Then we would be in a lawless society... or we would be in Modern America.

"WAIT" you say, that's not possible as people are being prosecuted and contracts are being enforced. Well if judges are allowed to redefine the law as suits them, and not as the law was written, then who is to say that it is not possible and already partially happening right now?

This re-writing of the law happens a lot now. I suspect it has been happening a long time, but the one case that stands out to me, the one that shows the start of the big growth of such Judicial Activism is as follows:

A farmer was growing wheat. He had a decent sized wheat farm. He used the wheat for his family, and for his animals. He never sold any of it, and was not otherwise giving it to others. he never sold his animals either.

The Federal Law of Interstate Trade, if you asked the Founders who wrote it, meant if you traded between two States then it was Interstate Trade. But Franklin D. Roosevelt in a fit added a lot of judges to the Supreme Court to make a court which would favor his socialist ideals.

These Judges ruled that by denying the wheat from the market, he was interfering with Interstate Trade, and therefore his wheat had to be taxed by the Government as if it was being traded across State lines.

I hope a lot of European Socialists just dropped their jaws... I promise this whole story is the truth. By keeping his wheat to himself he was supposedly breaking trade law.

There are more examples of such wrong doing. The Justices over the years declared a right to privacy existed, where the words privacy never existed. Oh do not get me wrong, privacy is a good thing in general, but we should have made a new Constitutional Amendment rather than act like pre-existing law said something it did not.

When you can make stuff up on the spot, to change the meaning of laws, how can you say there are laws at all?

This is why judges are not supposed to be activists, like the one Obama appointed to the Supreme Court, but instead are supposed to be Law followers, also known here as Constitutionalists. These poor Judges are derided by the media, since they do not actively help leftist goals, but instead just enforce the current law.

So while Liberals in America, and indeed abroad, may think some parts of American Law is not any good, the change they need to do is not via the courts, but via the lawmakers themselves. If the lawmakers wont change the law, how about you ask why instead of trying to use judges to change the law?