[Modernman]

Do you think judicial activists are always going to come right now and say "We don't care what the law says--neener neener"!? Of course they'll try to claim they're working within the framework of the very laws they cravenly ignore.

So, what type of judicial activism do you see here? You're saying all of the 20 or so courts that have heard this case are engaging in judicial activism?

I think, for a lot of Freepers, "judicial activism" simply means "a court decision we don't like."

[ninenot]

Well, for THIS FReeper, a Court decision which contradicts the natural law AND the will of Congress (in that order) is not only "activism," it is despotically arrogant and shameful.

Impeachment is too good for these cretins.

[maryz]

From OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web Today:

. . . . Whatever else one may say about the 11th Circuit's ruling in Schiavo v. Schiavo (link in PDF), it is not a work of judicial activism. Quite the opposite, it is a caricature of judicial restraint. The court bent over backward to construe the statute, and its duty in hearing the appeal, as narrowly as possible in an effort to frustrate Congress's intent. Call it judicial passive-aggression. . . .