How did Antonin Scalia define judicial activism?

Antonin Scalia defined judicial activism as the tendency of some judges to usurp the power of elected legislatures by creating law rather than merely interpreting it.1

He viewed this practice as a failure to commit to a well-developed judicial philosophy, which he believed invited judges to base their decisions on personal preferences and biases rather than the law. To counter this, Scalia advocated for a restrained judiciary that adheres to fixed-meaning modes of interpretation, specifically originalism for the Constitution and textualism for statutes. By focusing on the common understanding of terms at the time a text was enacted, Scalia argued that judges could minimize their own role in resolving matters that should properly be left to democratic processes or constitutional amendment.1