The right wing likes to throw the term, "activist" judges around to try and discredit judges who write opinions siding with public interest organizations, workers, or other parties in challenges to corporate power and government authority. They claim that when judges do that, they are "legislating from the bench" instead of "interpreting the law. "

On the other hand, they call their judges - the ones that find all kinds of ways to throw out public interest groups, workers, and other parties and to almost always uphold corporate power and governmental authority - "strict constructionists." This term is supposed to mean judges that adhere closely to the intent of the framers of the constitution.

This whole notion of "judicial activists" vs. "strict constructionists" is a phoney, politically driven division that has no meaning in reality. All judges are judicial activists, and some of the ones that are touted as being the most "strict constructionist" are actually the most activist. Supreme court justice Scalia is one of the best examples.

Scalia makes a cottage industry out of throwing public interest groups out of court, using the judge created concept of "standing" as the reason. According to legal precedent, you can't sue in U.S. federal court unless you have standing. You have standing if you have an "injury in fact." Basically, it means that you have to have some kind of problem with another party that causes you some kind of harm that is unique to you or a few others, and that a court order can remedy. The problem is the way that some judges, like Mr. Scalia, interpret "harm."

Actually, if you want to be technical about it, making up the concept of "standing" is judicial activism from the beginning. It is supposedly based on the constitution of the U.S., Article III, which reads,

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

As you can see, the word "standing" isn't even mentioned. It just says "cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, (and) the Laws of the US...." It isn't out of the question that this could have been interpreted as meaning that anytime there is a question of law and equity, that the courts should hear it. But no, first, you have to have "standing," and Mr. Scalia has, in a very activist manner, twisted this to give him the power to throw out anyone he doesn't want to give justice.

But all judges create words in consideration of cases involving already written laws or the constitution. You have to use words other than the ones already written to consider the cases. There is no such thing as a "strict constructionist" judge, and all judges are "activist." It's the nature of the job. But the media loves their labels, regardless of how inaccurate the characterization is. But it would be nice to have the mainstream media expose this falsely created division and actually serve the public interest. But most mainstream media pundits don't know diddly about the law or how it works, and so, it's the blind leading the blind, which is how people like Scalia get away with their deception.