Why have most of the advances in civil rights come through the federal courts and not through the legislature? what does this say about our democratic system? which would you rather have: judges who believe in judicial restraint when it comes to civil rights, or judges who are activists?

1. The legislature is made up of many different people with various different political and personal beliefs and opinions. They also represent the large number of people with likewise diverse opinions and they make laws and regulations in respect to wishes of those people and the Constitution. Now the problem is many view certain parts of the Constitution in a different light and it is the Supreme Court's job to examine and interpret the Constitution. The civil liberties belong to all and contains the rights some might disagree with. But that is the Constitution and the judges act according to it and not other factors.

2. This means that the US is a democratic society and in a such there is a threat of the tyranny of the majority. That is why there exist the system of checks and balances so that no one can take the fundamental rights of the people, who ever they may be. 

3. This is a difficult question and my answer would be the judges who uphold the constitution. I would rather have the judges who are open minded and try to do what is best for the country and its people. That means not blindly following any activist movement but if the activist movement is for the betterment of society than, yes, they should support it and interfere when necessary.

Possess private property.

Aztec and hopi that was the main property