Judicial Activism verses Restraint

I just answered a survey that focused in part on my opinions about "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint". The questions seemed to assume that a judge's duties consisted enrirely of interpreting the law. That might be the job of judges on the supreme court, who are charged I guess with determining often whether laws are constitutional, on the bases of cases decided under the laws in question.

As I understand the role of most judges, it is at least as much to interpret the facts before him, thereby determining how to apply the law. Judges also provide order in a process that allows advocates to bring controversial issues to closure. They help juries to do their jobs. They sometimes I guess encourage participants to settle issues out of court.

My point is that the surveys that I am asked to take often have badly written questions. The interviewers are not allowed to deviate from the questions. As a result, the answers don't mean much. I am not sure that a phone survey is really the way to get at public opinions on an issue as complex as judicial activism. On the other hand, one can write survey questions in a way to favor preselected responses.