My friend and columnist Rick Horowitz noted this morning on Facebook that he’s awaiting “conservative outrage over activist judges” overturning a federal law that had the full approval of Congress.

The outrage, were it to come, would be in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision overturning a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-voting-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The anger, of course, won’t come from the right side of the political aisle. Conservative judicial activism doesn’t count in conservative political circles. Activist judges in that context are, um, “following the law.”

The court said in its narrow ruling that Congress now must revise the law to ensure that it measures up to constitutional scrutiny.

The court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets a government formula for determining which states and counties are subject to continued federal oversight. The country has changed and the formula is now unworkable, said Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion.

Horowitz’s point, though, is an interesting one. Congress enacted the law 48 years ago after vigorous national debate. There were no hidden agendas or secret provisions. It said the law is firm and should be obeyed. Now, nearly five decades later, a new court has said the law no longer applies. The court, in effect, has written a new law from the bench.

Isn’t that the kind of activism that gets righties all riled up? Don’t they bristle when liberal judges interpret the law in such broad terms?

Where, indeed, is the outrage now?