In terms of law and politics, lots of things are going on these days. For example, this from the Washington Post:

In offering to have an expert help him, Kopf noted comments earlier this week by Rep. Steve King that activist judges were using their positions to impose their personal views on the rest of society.

King, an Iowa Republican who sat in on testimony Monday, said outside the courthouse that the nation must re-establish the separation of judicial and legislative powers.

This “separation” sounds good to me. The context is a case in which U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf has “offered to let a medical expert help him decide a case challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to dispel possible perceptions of bias toward the plaintiffs,” goes the lede. Such a decision comes from this problem:

In offering to have an expert help him, Kopf noted comments earlier this week by Rep. Steve King that activist judges were using their positions to impose their personal views on the rest of society.

Sounds good to me. But, here’s King’s answer to the problem of activist judges and so-called “re-establishment” of separation of legislative and judicial powers:

King, who said he opposes abortion, said Congress should consider legislation that would prohibit judges from ruling on legislation dealing with certain subjects, including abortion and same-sex marriages.

Do away with activist judges by doing away with judges. Good answer. I don’t think any of this is a problem with activist judges. On the contrary, the problem may be with activist legislators. Sometimes the just get over it crowd just can’t get over it themselves. It may be that the definition of an activist judge is any judge who decides a contentious case favoring what King disagrees with, or, for that matter, what I disagree with. So be it. But I still think Section 2 of Article 3 is easy enough to understand.

Then there’s Justice Scalia up to more tricks. And this.

“Don’t tape my speeches!” Why not? Is this activist judging?