[Jeff Head]

Read the comment by the dissenting Judge. I do not believe he is operating outside the law. He understands that there is a federal law on the books calling for a new hearing on the evidence instead of a rehash of the eviodence presented (allowed) in Greer's court. It would not be activist to act upon that law would it?

Besides, from time to time there is immoral and bad law and it is the duty of said Judges to not use it but weed it out, as it is the duty of the legislature not to create it, as it is the duty of the executive not to enforce it. When bad law is created, someone in one of the three branches must act against it. That is far different than judges creating law from scratch on their own in an activist mode. IMHO, there is no nmoral equivalency.

[Grut]

...from time to time there is immoral and bad law and...[w]hen bad law is created, someone in one of the three branches must act against it.

So, if state legislatures were to enact immoral laws - say, laws allowing the death penalty for crimes committed by children - you'd say the federal courts ought to overturn them?