…for the SCOTUS to hand down their decisions on Stolen Valor and that other case, here’s something you can use at the water cooler when your lefty friends inevitably call the Roberts court “activist”:

Here’s the data on the first five years of the Roberts Court (gleaned from this NYTimes infographic):

 

(1) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedent decisions at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. By contrast, the Roberts Court overturned precedent only at an average rate of 1.6 per term.

(2) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned laws at an average rate of 7.9, 12.5, and 6.2 laws per term. By contrast, the Roberts Court struck down only 3 laws per term.

 

Just three laws per term! Far, far from being “eager” to overturn legislatures, as hack Toobin dribbled, and obviously, indisputably playing no unusual role in “second-guessing laws,” as Fallows alarmingly squeaked, the Roberts Court has been a model of restraint. Restraint is, naturally, one of Chief Justice Roberts’ well-known characteristics and it was remarked upon during his confirmation hearings. One could even creditably call the Roberts Court the most restrained, incrementalist Court of the modern era. (I assure you, these numbers have not changed appreciably in the past two years.)

So historically the Roberts court is quite conservative, and by that i’m talking in terms of judicial restraint.

But to a wahhabi lefty, “activist” means “rules against us”:

Should the mandate be overturned today, liberals will repeat their lie endlessly in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and to tarnish the Chief Justice’s good name.

Anyone taking bets on whether Ed Schultz, in a fit of self-righteous fury, tells his fans to storm the court with pitchforks and torches?