The emperor's new clothes? In a piece about gun control, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the now forming UCI law school writes in the LA Times, 'If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.' Using this definition, he then goes on to assert that the current SCOTUS hews to judicial restraint only when it doesn't conflict with the conservative political agenda. Independent of his opinion about gun control, this is an interesting view of the language we use to describe judicial process. Is he correct? Is this all a shell game?