ubertuber

I don't even know where to start with this one... Mojo - can you clarify? Something that is bad is terrifyingly vague, unless you are just saying that judicial activism is inherently bad, whatever it may actually be. I have a feeling you meant something more than this though.

I get the point about courts being limited to affirming or striking down laws, but I don't think that it is particularly accurate. For instance the Supreme Court has long used "tests" like the Miller test for obscenity or the Lemon test for religious establishment. What could these possibly represent other than methods of defining the application of law - certainly beyond the mere affirmation/disqualification that you seem to feel is the proper limit of the court's power.

Extending your view of legislative pre-eminence a bit further (and tell me if I'm off, please - I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth), I'm concerned about checks and balances. The legislature makes laws, and the courts rule on them - affirming, striking down, limiting, and defining acceptable applications (as I mentioned above). The courts do not write new laws. Period. To limit the courts' power further is to extend the power of the legislature over the court - which to me seems inappropriate. The court is SUPPOSED to be a step removed from the will of the people. The proper limit that the legislature can impose is in confirmation, impeachment, and amendment. Other than these steps, the laws are intended to be in the hands of the executive and judicial branches.

I don't think I've seen a charge of judicial activism yet that amounts to meaning more than "bad because I disagree with it". Kelo v. New London isn't judicial activism as much as it is (possibly) just a bad finding. The case came to the Supreme Court properly, they ruled, and we don't like it. That's not activism, it's just disagreeable.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam