Comment by Ajedi32

My definition of judicial activism would be ruling in a biased manner to get a politically desired result rather than solely on the basis of the facts and the law as written.

You can rule in a biased manner in favor or individual freedom or against it. My point is that that's not relevant to the definition.

I do agree with you however that the current U.S. constitution is centered around the idea of a limited federal government with enumerated powers and that therefore an unbiased interpretation of the constitution as written will tend to result in rulings that support individual freedom in general, though that's not a hard and fast rule.