False Modesty

Paul Mirengoff has a very important aside in a recent post on how conservatives should view the traditional call for "judicial restraint" or "judicial modesty" that has been and continues to be a major part of conservative jurisprudence:

But modesty is an attitude not a philosophy. Although judges should judge modestly, it is not their function to be modest; their function is to decide cases, including constitutional cases, correctly. Thus, while modesty should inform constitutional adjudication, it should not become a judge’s overriding concern. One cannot build a sensible core judicial philosophy around modesty and restraint.

In the response to some conservatives who praised Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the Obamacare case because he did not overturn a duly enacted law by the legislative branch (since when has judicial activism been defined as simply overturning a law enacted by the majority?), this is much closer to the proper way to view these things.