I'm wading into LTG's territory here and this is more of me asking him a question than anything...
I've been hearing a lot of Republicans bringing out their usual warnings that Obama better not pick one of those "activist judges." Leaving aside the likely political irrelevance of Republican concerns in this regard right now, I'm annoyed at this argument for a couple of reasons and I'd like LTG's response to my annoyance.
First, judges that Republicans wax orgasmic about can be said to be activist as well. LTG is fond of pointing to Bush v. Gore as a prime example. I'm sure he can give us more. So there is some serious hypocrisy at work here.
Second, it seems to me that this activist judge argument builds from a seriously flawed understanding of the role of a judge in a civil law system. I just heard Orin Hatch say on TV that the role of judges is to interpret the law "as it's actually written" not "legislate from the bench." Implicit in this assertion is that that judges are only to read the law and decide which law applies. This is very much the role of judges in code law countries such as France or Italy where judges are viewed as a kind of highly specialized civil servant rather than a legitimately independent branch of government. By this rule, there would be no constitutional review by the Courts - a corner stone of our modern judicial system.
So LTG, am I on track in my annoyance with these arguments? Hypocritical and based on a flawed understanding of US judicial practice.