Franck is correct here, but his argument is odd when compared to his numerous Bench Memos posts where he effectively accepts the left's new definition of "activism" as any judge striking down any legislative act. It is strange that someone who is so right about one thing could be so wrong about its logical parallel. Franck says: "'Restraint,' then, is not the non-use of judicial power to rectify violations of the Constitution." Doesn't it follow, then, that "'activism' is not the use of judicial power to rectify violations of the Constitution"? And yet Franck might as well be channeling Rosen and Sunstein when he posts about activism.

Matt is arguing that even by this ridiculously self-serving definition, the activists are the judicial liberals.