Nor do I recall many Democrats labeling the Supreme Court decision on the 2000 election “judicial activism.” The Democrats themselves were seeking court action. They objected to the fact that the Court seemed to make the decision based on political rather than legal criteria, but not that the Court was involved.

I’m curious if the commentor from the Senate Republicans would like to explain why, if the Senate Republican’s recognize the “irony” (or rather, hypocrisy) of their decision, they chose their course rather than pursue the morally consistent course described by Representative Urquhart? What could it possibly hurt to permit the public to make a decision on the use of vouchers at all?

Thanks for calling out this hypocrisy. I’ve decided that the definition of “Activist Judge” is “one who reaches a different conclusion than I did” (or possibly, “than the talking heads in my party of choice did”). They’re judges, for crying out loud; they’re supposed to be interpreting the law.

I thought it was a little ironic that Republicans were looking to the courts for help in slipping this issue out of the hands of the voting public as well.