The concept of judicial activism prompt three questions, what are they?

You're on a roll —The concept of judicial activism typically prompts three key questions: 1. What is the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic society? This question explores whether judges should primarily interpret and apply existing laws (judicial restraint) or actively shape public policy and societal norms through their rulings (judicial activism). 2. To what extent should judges defer to the legislative and executive branches? This question concerns the separation of powers and whether judges should be cautious about overturning laws passed by elected representatives or actions taken by the executive, or if they have a duty to correct perceived injustices or constitutional violations. 3. What are the legitimate sources of law that judges should consider in their decisions? This question examines whether judges should strictly adhere to the text of statutes and precedents, or if they can draw upon broader principles of justice, morality, evolving societal values, or international law to inform their rulings. What's next?