Final answer:
Democratic theorists criticize the courts for being undemocratic due to their composition of unelected judges and advocate judicial restraint over judicial activism to maintain the separation of powers within government.
Step-by-step explanation:
Democratic theorists critique the judiciary because it consists of unelected judges, making it perceived as the least democratic branch of government.
They argue that courts should practice judicial restraint and leave policy decisions to the legislative and executive branches, rather than indulging in judicial activism by making policy through court rulings.
Critics often express concerns over judicial decisions that appear to create new law without the endorsement of elected representatives, fearing that this undermines the Constitution and the democratic process.
Justice Anthony Kennedy highlighted that an 'activist court' is often one whose decisions are simply disagreed with, indicating that the term may be subjective.
The Republican platform has asserted that judicial activism is threatening the rule of law by allowing judges to impose personal opinions on the public. On the other hand, originalist theories emphasize a more literal interpretation of the Constitution, to avoid judges making 'politically correct' decisions and setting precedents that future courts are obliged to follow.
Historical instances such as the Dred Scott decision and debates over the court's role in matters of racial integration have shown the contentious nature of Supreme Court decisions, which at times faced public and political opposition.
Furthermore, judges' political leanings can influence decisions on specific issues, emphasizing the complex relationship between the judiciary and democratic values.