[SteveA]

I personally think the courts and jury system have been likely the #1 factor in stopping tyranny in the U.S.

The requirement that we have of the unanimous agreement of 12 jurors to convict someone wasn't purely a mistake, it was done to protect minority views. Of course jury selection has tossed a lot of that out the window though.

I'd agree that there are activist judges but less from defending minority views against the latest Gallup poll survey being imposed on everyone (wait until a Gallup poll question asks whether people should walk on the left or right hand of a street LOL! Probably 51% will feel the right hand side of a street is better and be screaming about judges tossing out their inherited right to majority rule, where all others should suck it up, bend over and take it).

I agree activist judges exist but they are usually the ones that overstep their ability to merely deny government use of force and instead make up laws that use police to enforce. If a judge does more than merely overrule a law and the police action used to enforce it, but instead rules on something that requires new police enforcement, then he's effectively written a new law - which is a power reserved by the legislative branch and an overstepping of their judicial power.

But anyway, the fact that a judge or jury merely happen to go against a majority opinion is not activism but truly the entire INTENT of the judicial system, to counter the typical democratic force of legislature. I agree that there are poor/bad judges that overstep their intended function but it has little to do with denying majority rule but usually the opposite of denying individual private rights in favor of creating or allowing new forms of government intrusion that violate these.