I don’t think this qualifies as an activist court type of decision. It’s merely a strict adherence to the law decision, unless I’ve missed something you’ve noted.
I was more reacting to the posts by various FReepers who seem to regard this as reigning in Obama. And that now the SCOTUS is the guardian of freedom, whereas before it was interdicting Bush’s much-needed plans.
“Activist”? This is simply CHECKS and BALANCES.
The activist v. non-activist distinction in not fruitful, in my opinion. What matter is adherence to the Constitution and federal statutes, in their original public meaning. And sometimes, that adherence will lead to an ‘activist” result, i.e., a result that voids action by Congress, the States, or the Executive.
Examples:
1) The Kelo Court SHOULD have been active and struck down that use of eminant domain. Problem was it wasn’t activist.
2) If this court strikes down Obama’s abuse of the law and holds for Indiana, then it will be “activist” and correct.