What might be a concern regarding judicial activism?

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on strict interpretation of the law. A concern associated with judicial activism is that it may lead to decisions influenced by popular opinion instead of a rigorous analysis of legal principles. This situation could undermine the rule of law, as judges might prioritize the prevailing public sentiment over constitutional or statutory mandates.

When the judiciary makes decisions that align more closely with what is popular at the moment, it raises questions about the stability and predictability of the law. Laws are intended to provide a consistent framework that governs behavior and protects rights, and when judicial decisions are swayed by transient public opinion, this could lead to inconsistent rulings that might reflect the whims of the populace rather than established law or constitutional values. This dependency on popular sentiment can further challenge the judiciary's role as a check on legislative and executive powers, which is pivotal in a democratic system.

The other concerns such as flexibility in legal interpretations, challenges to established precedents, and accountability of state governments are relevant in discussions about judicial decisions, but they do not encapsulate the primary issue of how judicial activism can shift the focus from law-centered to opinion-centered rulings. The emphasis on aligning judicial decisions with public sentiment