[dirtboy]

Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?

Great question, and IMO the answer is "it depends on how you do it." Roe v. Wade, for example, was engineered by William O. Douglass to give SCOTUS a chance to rule on abortion. I would hope that a strict constructionist would not attempt something similar, but would wait for a state to pass a law banning or severely restricting abortion, and continue to wait as the rulings at the appellate level bring the case to SCOTUS, and then would apply sound Constitutional reasoning to the case, in a way that acknowledges the precedent of Roe but also takes a big honkin' bite out of Roe, which will then slowly bleed to death as states realize they are no longer held in its shackles. Overturning judicial precedents, even bad ones, is something that should be done carefully, as overstepping bounds in that department can in turn allow libs to do the same against conservative, Constitutional decisions.

[Sabertooth]

ST: Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?

DB: Great question, and IMO the answer is "it depends on how you do it."

I understand what you're getting at, but I believe we need more clarity, or we will lose this debate with the Left.

Judicial activism occurs when legislation is conducted from the bench, in violation of the Separation of Powers.

Throwing out such activist, judicial legislation, is never "activist" itself, regardless of the magnitude of the consequences.

If the Right doesn't get clear on that and consistently make that case, the debate will be framed by the Left as one set of activists against another. The Separation of Powers is the device that balances our democratic republic. Violating the Separation erodes both our our democratic (small "d") and republican (small "r") traditions, to the detriment of all.