The term “judicial activism” is frequently used in political debate without definition, which has created some confusion over its precise meaning or meanings. In an effort to clarify the situation, Bradley C. Canon has identified six dimensions along which judges or courts may be perceived as activist:[1]

1. Majoritarianism- This dimension takes into account the degree to which policies adopted through the democratic process are judicially overturned.
2. Interpretive stability- This dimension takes into account the degree to which court decisions alter earlier decisions, doctrines, or constitutional interpretations.
3. Interpretive fidelity- This dimension takes into account the degree to which constitutional provisions are interpreted contrary to the clear intentions of their drafters, or the clear implications of the language used in the provision. (See also Judicial interpretation)
4. Substance/democratic process- This dimension takes into account the degree to which judicial decisions make substantive policy, as opposed to acting to preserve the democratic political process.
5. Specificity of policy- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision establishes policy itself, as opposed to leaving discretion to other agencies.
6. Availability of an alternate policymaker- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision supersedes or inhibits serious consideration of the same problem by other government agencies.