I’ve been wanting for some time now to vent my spleen about one of the more insidious political strategies currently in play by the right, namely the campaign to convince the average, not-too-well-informed and not-terribly-thoughtful voter that “activist judges” are wrecking the country, but naturally Scalzi has beaten me to the punch. His basic thesis is the same as my thinking on this subject, namely that those who use the term “activist judge” only seem to bring it out when a particular ruling doesn’t go their way. It’s sour grapes, in other words, but it’s also a cynical (and, unfortunately, effective) effort to sway public opinion into thinking the right’s agenda is the natural default setting for the country. It’s also nonsense, since, as John points out,

…the most “activist” ruling of the last decade, if we’re talking about the judiciary thwarting the will of the people, was the Supreme Court ruling that gave the presidency to George Bush. Yet no one seems be calling Antonin Scalia an “activist judge.”

In other words, judicial activism is fine when it helps your side but evil and un-Constitutional when it helps the other. Um, yeah, sure. Scalzi’s entire entry on this subject is well worth reading. He’s pretty blunt and not at all shy about showing his anger toward those currently in power (he gives the left a drubbing, too, just for balance), but he makes some excellent points. Here’s the money quote:

Are today’s judges “activist” — meaning they arrogate to themselves the powers that should reside with the other branches of government? By and large, I think not — I believe the majority of federal judges, even the ones whose judicial philosophies I disagree with, try to do their job faithfully and in accordance to the Constitution (moreover I also suspect that state and local judges do the same under the laws by which they rule). What is different — at least in very recent time — is that currently the right wants to suggest the judiciary is unchecked, arrogant and politically-minded. But inasmuch as many of the rulings decried as the result of “activist judges” are legally rigorous and sensibly ruled — just not what the folks on the right wanted — it’s pretty transparently partisan whining.