Does the term “judicial activism” have some objective meaning? The Capital Times does not seem to think so, reporting earlier this week:

[C]ourt observers and legal scholars are skeptical that the descriptive terms [judicial activist and strict constructionist] have any meaning, except as buzzwords used by conservative candidates to create a clear distinction between themselves and their more liberal rivals.

Now, I do not intend to defend “strict constructionist,” which is the term the story uses to describe conservatives, because I do not think most conservatives are “strict constructionists.” To quote Justice Scalia,

I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict.” I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.

Textualist and originalist are better terms. Judicial restraint used to be the preferred description, although judicial modesty is on the rise as the preferred label.

My point in this post, however, is to defend the term “judicial activist” as possessing objective meaning.