Blah, Blah, Judicial Activism, Blah, Blah, Blah.

The Supreme Court again strikes down a law created by a duly-elected legislature. The decision is largely based historical context and a right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Another abortion restriction stuck down by the Court? Nope, try the DC Handgun Ban.

Can you hear the cries from the far right bemoaning the runaway judiciary? How about the accusations of "judicial activism"? Or maybe the feigned indignation of commentators and blowhards in the media?

No? Well, you won't. Because "judicial activism" for the far right has really always been code for "a decision we don't like." Often those who attack the more liberal decisions of the Court base their arguments on the idea that justices should stick to what is physically written in the Constitution. The conservative justices of the Court have written blistering dissents to this effect, even as recently as two weeks ago when the Court struck a blow to the military tribunal process in Guantanamo Bay. So it was really something to read the reasoning of conservative poster boy Antonin Scalia as he--a supposed strict constructionist-- created the right to bear arms for self defense based on the tradition of gun ownership in our country.

Strike down an anti-abortion law or a shabbily constructed military tribunal system and it's decried as "judicial activism." Strike down a gun law and it's OK. Be consistent or shut up. The hypocrisy is growing tiresome.