This is the argument that liberal judicial activists and their legislative counterparts use to defend laws that are clearly unconstitutional, including the so-called "pro-choice" right to (therapeutic)abortion-on-demand.
The term "co-conspirators" could apply to these liberals, except that they do it in the open with much clever Orwellian double-think. How amusing it is, too, that liberals can refer to conservative judges as "judicial activists"!
Well, if Supreme Court justices are busy striking down those acts of Congress, the President and lower courts that exceed the Constitutional limits on their authority, then I suppose conservative judges may be seen as "activist" in that light! Or would restorers of balance be more accurate?
[Believe it or not, there is a group called Libertarians for Life (www.L4L.org)].
The actual meaning of the term legally is "let the decision stand", although I do not disagree with your opinion as to factuality. What my point was, is that given the judicial climate of today, there is no possible way Newsome would be held legally accountable for the results of his "utopia"...
the infowarrior