Will the Real Judicial Activist Please Stand Up

“Judicial activism, n., A usually pejorative phrase implying that a judge is applying his or her political views, rather than basing decisions on law or prior precedent” – Webster’s New World Law Dictionary, 2006

“Given second circuit precedent, Bushey vs. New York State Civil Services Commission, the panel concluded that the city’s decision in that particular situation was lawful under established law.” - Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, 14 July 2009, explaining her decision in the case of Ricci vs. DiStefano, in which the Second Circuit refused to take on a case by a group of firemen against the City of New Haven

“She says, ‘Well, the Ricci case was decided on precedent.’ There was no precedent! … There was no precedent in the Ricci case that she could cite, yet that's her excuse.” – Rush Limbaugh, commenting on the Judge’s explanation, 14 July 2009

Who’s the real advocate of judicial activism here – the judge who bases her decision on precedent or the commentator who, in addition to making a factual error about the existence of precedent, criticizes the judge because the decision was unfair?