Why there are "activist judges" (if there are)

In an editorial called Profiles in Cowardice, the Washington Post today writes:

Republicans in both chambers, forgetting that Congress is supposed to be an independent branch, snapped to attention when the president told them what to do. At least some of them obviously knew better. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) courageously championed an amendment to restore the judicial oversight that Mr. Bush opposed. When his amendment failed on a 51 to 48 vote, the senator said he would vote against the bill, calling it "patently unconstitutional on its face." Then he voted for it. The bill, he explained, had good points, and the courts "will clean it up."

Ah. That's the strategy: let the courts "clean it up".

When the Legistlative Branch ducks its responsibility to make good law - not "good laws", but rather law that is constitutional, law that applies fairly and across the board - and leaves it to the Judicial Branch to clean up after them, it's no wonder that judges begin to look activist.

If legislators cared less about alienating their constituents and more about upholding their constitutional duties, judges wouldn't have to get involved. And if legislators deliberately pass bad law - poorly written, I mean - then they should shut the hell up about judges who do what they're left to do.