Redefining Key Terms

Yesterday, in my post "What is judicial activism?" I suggested as fundamentally in error the President's argument that, if the Supreme Court's finds the recent health care law to be unconstitutional, its decision would be an instance of judicial activism.  I suggested that it would be an instance, rather, of judicial review:  the power accorded to the judiciary to determine the constitutionality -- and therefore legal validity -- of a statute, treaty, or action of the legislative and/or executive branches of government.

In this vein, I just ran across the April 2 online editorial in The New York Sun, "Ex Parte Obama."  It offers a different viewpoint from the administration's (and possibly establishment's) on the matter.  For that reason it is worth reading as part of the ongoing conversation about the comments made by the former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  The question is whether the President is correct that judicial review (a government asset) is actually judicial activism (a government threat and rhetorical pejorative).

More basically, when do we redefine terms for our own political or personal purposes?  How should we argue and converse with others if we have a sincere concern for virtuous deportment?

For convenience, I reproduce the Sun's editorial in its entirety after the jump.

What is judicial activism?

According to today's news stories, the President cast a potential Supreme Court decision against the constitutionality of his signature health care law as an action that would be tantamount to "judicial activism."  Both The New York Times ("President Confident Health Law Will Stand," page A17) and The Wall Street Journal ("Obama Warns Supreme Court," page A1) report on the matter.

I do not know how the nine justices will rule on the pertinent matters before the court.  And I am as opposed as anyone in principle to "judicial activism."  But is it really proper to frame judicial activism as a court's deciding whether legislation passed by the Congress adheres to the limits on federal power relative to state power and individual liberty as set forth in the governing documents of a republic?  Is that what judicial activism is?  Isn't that just judicial review according to Marbury v. Madison (1803)?  Aren't courts supposed to do that?

Or is judicial activism merely the term that we use to disparage a court's (potentially) ruling on the constitutionality of a matter in a way that we don't like?