“The line between judicial ‘activism’ and due deference is not determined by whether one always lets elected branches get their way, but rather by whether a judge will defer to the clear language of the Constitution regardless of whether that means affirming legislative or executive action or overturning it. Sometimes a judge is being activist by refusing to overturn a congressional action despite a lack of constitutional authority for that action, merely because the judge happens to agree with the policy Congress has enacted... The very problem is that too many judges want to ensure that ‘no interest is served except the interest of justice.’ The problem is that what one man considers justice is often in conflict with the law, and that too many judges want to put their ideas of justice above the law’s dictates. But Oliver Wendell Holmes was right to upbraid a friend who urged him to ‘do justice.’ His answer: ‘That is not my job, sir. My job is to apply the law’.”

-- Quin Hillyer