Mehlman spoke of his disgust that activist judges are micromanaging decisions at, for example, Gitmo, decisions that should be properly made by a branch of government accountable to the electorate, in this case the Executive Branch.

The Republicans are finally getting around to spinning Miers to their incrowd. The content about Meirs is fairly lame. When somebody asks you if your nominee is going to be like a Scalia (a strict constructionalist) or a Thomas (an orignalist) "yes" is a stupid answer.

However, the above comment resonated with me. I'm really growing tired of conservatives using "strict constructionalist" to refer to any legal decision they like and "activist/legislating from the bench" to refer to any legal decision they don't like. These words actually have meanings and they aren't always consistent with your objectives. Does Mehlman really mean to call Scalia an "activist judge?"

"There shall be no law but the will of the electorate" is anti-constitutional and runs against the grain of every argument they make about their "consistent" judicial philosophy, not to mention the fundamental idea of a free society. Yes, Virginia, civil rights limit the power of the government.

Does anyone know any "liberal" lawyers who consistantly blog on SCOTUS stuff?