I happened, in my travels, to come across the above article in the MSBA's Bar Bulletin written by Mr. Dugan.  In it, Mr. Dugan discusses the problem of attacking judges as "activists" in the context of some times unpopular decisions by a court on a high profile issue like same-sex marriage or abortion.  I agree with the sentiment of this article.  

While not a resident of Iowa, I remained dismayed that members of that state’s supreme court could be summarily discharged by its residents for issuing an opinion on gay marriage in that state based on the court’s view of the law and the constitution.[1]  For me, the issue is less about the political issue and more that we ought to value the independence of our judiciary, even when we do not always agree with the outcome of a particular case or ruling.

We endanger the rule of law by making it too easy to attack the judiciary when they decide an issue differently than we might want, regardless of what side we may be on the issue before the court.  This only becomes more apparent when a court is left as a last resort to protect a liberty interest of an individual without the means or support to prevail on the political departments of our government.  We should aspire to support the independence of our judiciary, and take the phrase "judicial activism" out of our vocabulary.