From
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/pol/70638781.html:"Conservative politicians insist that courts should defer to the democratically elected branches, but conservative judges do not seem to be listening. The Supreme Court's conservative majority regularly overturns laws passed by Congress, like the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The court has even established a bizarre series of hoops Congress must jump through to pass a law protecting Americans' 14th Amendment equal-protection rights. Congress must prove in many cases that the law it passed is "congruent" and "proportional" to the harm being addressed. Even John Noonan Jr., an appeals court judge appointed by President Reagan, has said these new rules - which Justice Scalia eagerly embraces - reduce Congress to the level of an "administrative agency."
So I would invite you to answer your own question regarding the above.
"The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism. "
Like I said, those (and by those I mean, lets not kid ourselves, conservatives) that attack the courts for activism would have it both ways, while trying to appear like they strictly interpret the constitution. It's hogwash.
Why this recent fight? Why now?
The American Taliban got a cold slap in the face when it was realized that their will in the Schiavo case could not triumph, despite emergency intervention by the Republican controlled United States Congress (care to point out the Constitutionality in that, by the way?). Who was at fault? Who had the audacity to interrupt God's will? Why, the courts, of course.
So here we are. And despite the courts being dominated by Republican judges, it was the courts who had the ability to thwart God's will and it is the courts who must be made to acquiesce. Nothing short of
complete capitulation to their theocratic agenda is or ever will be acceptable.
So, modelled on the attacks on the liberally biased media (yeah, right), there is a new front in the war and its name is law. A bogeyman is constructed, namely activism, and it's applied without any sense of hypocrisy to just those people whose brand of activism they don't agree with.
I call BS.
