"Judicial Activism’s Perfect Storm" from RealClearPolitics.com

Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of The American Thinker, in a Commentary for RealClearPolitics.com, explains why judicial activism in America's courts "may have reached its apogee":

Judicial activism, as ... writing of law from the bench is known, faces a confluence of forces which promise relief for the principles of Constitutionalism, and for the American people they protect. The trend of judicial activism morphing into judicial tyranny faces a perfect storm.

Lifson goes on to list and explain some of the "key elements" of this perfect storm:

(1) The American Public Is Paying Attention

***
Many of these cases are symbolically connected to many people’s self-identity, or to institutions to which they have passionate attachments. Others affect the self-interests or perceived safety of ordinary people. The law is not some abstract notion or set of principles to them, but rather an ongoing force affecting their lives. Accordingly, public interest in the composition and conduct of the judiciary at all levels has never been higher.
***

(2) Abortion Policy Is An Increasing, Not A Receding Irritant

***
The decades since Roe was handed down have not cooled the passions or solidified public acceptance of its dictates, but rather have aggravated discontent. Today, both political parties find themselves required to take a stand on abortion, and it is the Republicans, who generally dissent from Roe, who hold the political advantage on the matter.
***

(3) Public Awe Of The Judiciary Is Receding

***
Judges and justices are increasingly seen as flawed human beings, rather than as principle-driven protectors of an impartial system. The very nature of judicial activism exposes itself to this perception.
***

(4) The Supreme Court Is At A Turning Point

***
If President Bush is able to appoint two or three new justices to the Court, including a new Chief Justice, there is the possibility of the Court signaling a retreat from activism, and legitimizing a return to what has been called “originalism,” the modest belief that the writers of law and the framers of the Constitution should be merely interpreted according to the actual words they wrote, not redefined and redirected by inhabitants of the judiciary.
***

(5) Powerful Voices Advocate A Return To Originalism
In addition to noting Justice Scalia's continuing public outspokenness (unusual for a member of the Supreme Court) on the issue of judicial activism and Mark Levine's new book Men In Black, Lifson identifies a rising voice of advocacy on the issue:

***
The blogopshere, with many blogs produced by law professors, lawyers, and others interested in the issue of legal activism, is another collective voice debating the topic, one which bypasses the former monopoly held by liberal media organs, which mostly supported activism with great enthusiasm.
***

(6) The Republican Senate Majority Seems Inclined To Break Filibusters of Judicial Nominees
I hope this isn't just wishful thinking.

And, finally,

(7) The Democrats’ Arguments Will Not Prevail In The Public Arena
Ditto.

***
If and when Democrats force the issue by obstruction of Senate business, they will look ridiculous, continuing a recent self-destructive trend. The fact that Minority Leader Reid is about as un-dynamic and unappealing a spokesman as they could select only amplifies their inability to persuade anyone but loyalists.
***

Lifson concludes by speculating that historians may note the year 2005 as marking the "zenith of judicial activism". Here's hoping Lifson's right about that.