When liberals beat conservatives over the head with the word "activism"...

... they fight back.

This is a very old game, but that's a pretty good bout if you're in the mood to watch. Adam Cohen, in the NYT, did the usual thing of saying that conservatives complain about "judicial activism" but when they get to pick the judges, those judges engage in activism for conservative political causes. And then Ilya Solmin responded the way you'd expect: Conservatives are dedicated to getting the law right and doing what it requires.

But liberals also assert that the judges they like are only doing what they law requires. It's extremely uncommon for anyone to embrace the label "activism." "Activism" is a pejorative you throw at your opponents.

But here's the thing. Wielding the "activism" epithet has does not equal embracing a philosophy of "judicial restraint." Unlike "activism," "restraint" is often viewed in a positive light and some judges and legal scholars will embrace it.

Restraint has to do with deferring to the choices of democratic decisionmakers. This can favor either liberal or conservatives causes, and the price is paid by those who have preferences that lost in the political process -- often, but not always, the preferences of the majority. This is a respectable type of jurisprudence, and some judges and scholars do embrace it.

This restraint is not the same thing as avoiding activism. Judges who say they will do what the law requires and only what the law requires are not promising to use restraint.