I look at it this way.
The representatives we elect place judges on the court. Let's assume that interpreting the constitution is the true goal since that is what this country was founded on, judges that overstep their bounds and make law instead of interpreting it are activists.
Doesn't this work both ways? Leftwing politicians put judges on the court who share their ideology. We elect those pols. So in effect, If you voted for Clinton(I know you didn't)you effectively voted to put Ginsburg on the court. Hence the people put an activist on the court.
My point is, why do we continue to let the left shape the argument that "originalist" means right wing?
I guess I misunderstood your first response to my post. Now that I understand what you're saying I agree, we the people in a general sense put people like Ginsberg on the court. In fact, it was a president who we conservatives elected who appointed Souter. That act alone would make Bush 41 anathema in my eyes even if he had performed well in every other way.