Requiring police to wear and use body cameras is judicial activism to achieve...?
It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.
Washington D.C. is an at-will employment state. If they feel violated because their job requires a bodycam, they can take their vast litany of talents to any private enterprise that's willing to pay for their retinue. Nobody should go to jail because they don't want to wear a bodycam, after all.
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders.
The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it.
This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years.
Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”