Active Imaginations

Leftists have recently adopted the tactic of calling the late William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and other judges in their mold "judicial activists," presumably appropriating that term because they know most Americans hate judicial activists.

Today, Ann Coulter appropriately dismantles their sophistry:

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.

But liberals have recently taken to pretending judicial activism is — as The New York Times has said repeatedly — voting "to invalidate laws passed by Congress." Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.

That's why we have a judicial branch, Mr. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times. It's not a make-work program for the black robe industry. It's a third branch of our government. You'll learn more about this concept next year when you're in the seventh grade, Pinch.

Rolling back previous judicial activism is not "judicial activism," any more than putting handcuffs on batterers is battery.