在最近的一次学术研讨会上,法官弗兰克·埃斯特布莱克以带有一种表面上看似轻松的语气指出:“每个人都不屑接受司法积极主义,因为它是一个臭名昭著而又难以理解的术语”然而,这种观察缺乏正当性。尽管大多数人同意司法积极主义的确是一个难以理解的术语,但是,一些学者甚至包括现任最高法院的大法官却认为,在某种语境下,该术语不总意味着是件坏事。其中的问题在于:今天的人们几乎没有对司法积极主义进行观察从而没有附加界定和说明。20世纪90年代,“司法积极主义”和“司法积极主义者”的术语就在杂志和法律评论上大约3815篇文章中出现了;321世纪的头4年,这类术语又出现在1817篇文章中,平均每年约450篇之多。现在的法官比他们在前10年更可能 At a recent symposium, Judge Frank Estelle Blake, with a seemingly easy tone, said: “Everyone disdains judiciary activism because it’s a notorious and difficult to understand Terminology ”However, this observation lacks legitimacy. Although most agree that judicial activism is indeed an incomprehensible term, some academics, including even the Supreme Court Justice, argue that in some context, the term does not always mean a bad thing. The problem with this is that today’s people rarely observe judicial activism without any additional definition or explanation. In the 1990s, the terms “judicial activism” and “judicial activist” appeared in about 3,815 articles in magazines and legal commentary; and in the first four years of the 321’s, such terms reappeared In 1817 articles, the average is about 450 articles per year. The judges today are more likely than they were in the first 10 years