Judical Activism: This is excactly what we're talking about

Judicial Activism can cut both ways. When the Left talks about curbing judicial activism, they mean they don't want anybody making any judicial decisions, be they correct or not (against the backdrop of the law and constitution) that go against their agenda.

If a judge should decide that a judicial decision was incorrect according to law or constitution and it goes AGAINST a Leftist pillar, that's activism to the Left.

When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they mean the judge skews his or her interpretation of the law and constitution to fit the desired political outcome.

Judge Roberts has shown that he does not do this. In fact, he actively believes in not doing this. This is a threat to people who want to use politically active judges to forward their agendas by bypassing the legeslative process.

Apparently NARAL has an ad out now accusing Roberts of "aiding" an abortion clinic bomber. Apparently this is based on an opinion he wrote on whether or not a certain law applied in the case. He read the law and said that Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 could not technically be applied to abortion protesters.

I don't know about you, but I don't find that idea particularly suprising.

It turned out that the Supreme Court agreed that it would not apply. So it wasn't just him.

That judicial decision was based on reading the law and seeing if it applied in the case. If it did not, regardless of whose argument it helped or hurt, it should not be applied in the case. Period.

To suggest that Judge Roberts is somehow for violence against abortion clinics or that even if he was (which I doubt) that he would decide cases in favor of the Pro-Life fringes is -- slander. But as we saw in the last election, the Left knows no boundaries when it comes to taking a shred of "evidence" and spinning a huge lie around it (Michael Moore is most famous for this -- CBS News made a pretty good run at it, and then there's the Newsweek Koran-flushing story).

Pro-Choice Judicial Activism would be to ignore the technicalies of law and decide that it did apply because the judge wanted it to apply in order to achieve the desired political outcome.

Suppose that a law was cited that did apply in this case.

Pro-Life Judicial Activism would be to ignore the technicalites of the law and decide that it did not apply because the judge wanted it not to apply in order to achieve the desired political outcome.

Judge Roberts opinion had nothing to do with being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. If you don't like the law, either find another one that does or lobby your congressman/woman to propose and/or vote for a new law that does apply.

See the point?

If you don't, go take a course on the US Constitution.