The point I was trying to make was that "activism", as it is currently flung around by the media has less to do with actual judicial activism than politics. And that if the media were being fair, it would recognize that both sides of the political line have been activist about certain issues. Therefore, if "activism" was being used fairly, it wouldn't be a helpful term because it would describe both sides. I don't think the term is necessarily vacuous, although you imply that you might think so. It is simply non-discriminating because most judges issue activist decisions on some issues. If that doesn't make sense then the whole paper should be scrapped.