When the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution is it sometimes, in effect, making new laws? Is such “activism” on the part of the Supreme Court part of its job?

Indeed, when the Supreme Court interprets the scope of a certain law, it often creates rights, obligations or legal clauses that are not specifically written in said laws. This type of source of law is called jurisprudence, and it creates rights in the same way as laws, being a totally legitimate means.

This judicial activism is part of the work of the Supreme Court and judges in general; if judges only applied laws without interpreting them or delimiting their scope in specific situations, many specific situations of citizens or groups would be overlooked, which would lead to injustices and situations in which the law would not fulfill its purpose, which is to guarantee a peaceful and harmonious life in society.

Explanation:

Judicial activism refers to a judge or court who is more willing to declare legal or governmental actions invalid. This concept is broader than the strict right to review, in which a judge checks to what extent a law, decision or measure complies with the Constitution.

In America, judicial activism relies on the groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, when the Court appropriated the right to review laws and government decisions in general from going against the Constitution.

Republicans use the term in the United States to oppose political interference by the Supreme Court by broadly interpreting constitutional law. According to the Democrats, however, legal activism is necessary to protect minorities from an irrational and discriminatory majority morality.

can someone just answer this

when she faked her death and the readers knew but romeo didn't.