Just more hypocrisy from the right. When it comes to dissing those judges who "legislate from the bench," the wingnuts should be criticizing their own.

Over the summer, the NY Times had a piece that showed the more conservative Supreme Court justices to be much more likely to inflict their opinions and change established law. The so-called liberal justices were at the bottom of the list, i.e. much less "active." Here's the graphic:

Thomas: 65.63%
Kennedy: 64.06%
Scalia: 56.25%
Rehnquist: 46.88%
O'Connor: 46.77%
Souter: 42.19%
Stevens: 39.34%
Ginsburg: 39.06%
Breyer: 28.13%

Justice Thomas is at the top of the list, voting to overturn 65.63% of Congressional laws, whereas liberal Justice Breyer is at the bottom -- with the other liberals.

So the next time you hear a wingnut blabbering about the need for "judicial restraint" or for less "judicial activism," what he/she is really complaining about are judges not ruling or being active enough towards their views. The "active" and "restraint" stuff is all bullsh*t; a justice is A-OK in their book if he/she is active as hell -- for their side. (Oh, and let's not forget this example of judicious careful restraint: the astounding, without-precedent 2000 decision to anoint Bush over Gore).