That Judicial Activism.

EJ Dionne takes on judicial activism in his column today at Washington Post.

What is judicial activism? The answer is akin to the one I just posed to a friend on twitter who asked what religion doesn't have superstition built into it: mine. In other words, court opinions (or faiths) that support my viewpoint aren't activist, or at least that's how the ranting goes. Dionne says Alito's mouthing dissent during the State of the Union speech is good; it shows that the court opposes dissenting views, even from the president.

That our judicial branch is established to interpret the constitution means they are to serve a non-biased role, a balance to the executive and legislative branches of government. Yet judges are members of society and are appointed for their politics. We've got a dangerous right-leaning court at the moment, there's no doubt. How to counter their biased decisions with public sentiment is the real issue.

As I said elsewhere recently, laws are only constitutional because they have not been proven unconstitutional. The courts are the keepers of that standard and we're fools to think that the SCOTUS is an objective branch of government.

Alito's inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.

Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed "not true." His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.

The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.

The movement's legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.