What does "judicial activism" mean? Stated objectively, it means the judiciary overturning actions of the other two branches. The first "judicial activist" was Chief Justice John Marshall, who declared for the Court in Marbury v. Madison that:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

Obviously, in so doing, courts will sometimes decide that the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches (and the States) run afoul of the Constitution. When doing so, the courts will be "activist."

The general rule is for courts to presume constitutionality, and indeed, interpret laws in order to avoid constitutional conflict, in an effort to not be "activist."

In reality, judges do what they like, honoring the principle of "judicial modesty" more in the breach, than in practice. Yes, I am a Legal Realist, in the sense that I believe this best describes what happens in our courts.

Thus, my view of the judiciary is that it is another political actor on the stage. As a political actor, I believe in using political methods to attempt to affect its actions.

Describing the attempted radical conservative counterrevolution in the courts as "judicial activism" strikes me as an effective political means to affect the actions of the courts.

Because of this, I think the White House's response to Judge Vinson's ruling on the health bill is good politics. I disagree with Atrios' "honest broker" stance with regard to this point.

Speaking for me only