"Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution."

You may also want to note another of her intelligent and concise comments from the above commentary:

"This is the Democrats' new approach to winning arguments: Change the definition of words in mid-argument without telling the guy you're arguing with. Chairman Mao would approve."

This is exactly what you have been engaging in whenever we debate a subject such as - the US getting very little oil from Iraq or the rich paying almost all taxes collected. Go back and read those threads. Point is that liberals have a finite amount of talking points on any given subject. Once they run out of them they end the discussion or act like the discussion was actually about something else.