[wind_magic]

Judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is a long standing point of contention, it isn't a new argument, it has been fought since the Republic was founded. Judicial restraint is the idea that the Supreme Court should only strike down laws that are obviously unconstitutional, that they should make minor very specific rulings, and that they should defer to the legislature and uphold laws created by the legislature at ever opportunity. Judicial activism is obviously the opposite of that.

Judges are not supposed to make law, they are supposed to interpret law - HUGE difference.

Think of it like when a foreign leader comes to the United States, that young interpreter who is speaking for him, they aren't really supposed to be making stuff up, they're just supposed to be interpreting what is being said so that everybody can understand it, clarifying it so that there isn't any mistake or miscommunication. One of the people is making the decisions and originating the message, the other one is providing an interpretation for those who may not understand what was intended, but it is not the interpreters job to change the intent.

There really isn't much room for subtlety there, though I am sure that some would like to make it seem vague so that they will have wiggle room to do whatever they please when it pleases them. Who can blame them, I suppose, if you can't get your way in one branch of government, move on to the next one.