[dsc]

"those who don't agree with the ruling"

The question of judicial activism is one of empirical reality, not one of agreement or disagreement with the ruling.

If a court were to annouce something I agreed with but which was neither constitutionally mandated nor enected by a legislative body--say, for instance, rounding up every Clinton/Gore voter, branding them on the forehead with the words "moral leper," taking away their right to vote and restricting them from certain jobs--that would be judicial activism as a matter of objective fact, regardless of who agreed or disagreed.

[Kerberos]

"that would be judicial activism as a matter of objective fact, regardless of who agreed or disagreed."

Empirically speaking that would be true, but most people don't apply that kind of critical analysis to the issues. What one mainly hears is simply opinion with no foundation in fact.