( CNN ) -- The bogeyman of judicial activism is back in the news . We owe the latest round of charges to the chorus of commentators , activists and politicians — now led by President Obama himself — fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court will upend part or all of his signature health care law . Like most accusations of activism against the courts , these pre-emptive attacks shed no real light on the constitutional questions at stake . Indeed , it is time to admit how useless — or worse — the epithet of judicial activism is . Echoing other critics , Obama claimed that a ruling against the Affordable Care Act would be `` unprecedented and extraordinary '' and complained that `` an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law . '' Let 's assume the president did not actually mean to imply that no properly enacted law could ever legitimately be found unconstitutional . Instead , let 's examine the broader picture those decrying activism mean to paint : one of an imperial judiciary routinely snatching important policy decisions out of the hands of elected representatives . That picture is false . A 2011 Institute for Justice study , `` Government Unchecked : The False Problem of 'Judicial Activism ' and the Need for Judicial Engagement , '' compared the number of laws struck down by the Supreme Court to the number of laws passed by Congress and state legislatures . From 1954 to 2002 , the court struck down , in whole or in part , just two-thirds of one percent of laws passed by Congress and less than one-twentieth of a percent of laws passed by state legislatures . Over those five decades , the court struck , on average , just two federal and nine state laws per year . Toobin : Court 's Obama order a 'hissy fit ' These tiny numbers and percentages of laws struck are generally consistent over time — including into the Roberts Court era , as a different data set with more recent rulings shows . In the balance of power between the elected and judicial branches , the scales tip heavily toward Congress and state legislatures . Nothing the court might do in the health care case will change that . By the numbers , charges of rampant judicial activism are wildly overblown . Worse , they typically serve as a partisan club intended to foreclose healthy debate on constitutional questions . Obama attempted to hoist conservatives — for years , advocates of judicial `` restraint '' and `` minimalism '' — with their own petard . But this game of gotcha just shows how `` judicial activism '' has become code for `` decisions I do n't like . '' Both sides play the activism card and demand deference to democratic outcomes , when they like them . Claims of judicial activism have become a substitute for serious thought about the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions , and one that leads to ever-expanding government power . That 's the true meaning of `` deference . '' But in our system of government , courts are meant to be `` bulwarks '' of liberty , not rubber stamps for government power . Obama gave the game away when he attempted to walk back his initial comments by pointing out that , since the days of the New Deal , the Supreme Court has rarely , if ever , struck down economic legislation . Video : Aide : Obama knows the law . That is precisely the problem . As the 11th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals observed in striking down the individual mandate , when Congress exceeds the outer bounds of its authority , `` the Constitution requires judicial engagement , not judicial abdication . '' It is no accident that President Obama and other supporters of the health care law are jumping on the judicial activism bandwagon now . But years of judicial abdication in the economic realm should not justify more . If the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the Affordable Care Act , it will not do much to upset the balance of power between the judicial and elected branches . It might , however , be a small but important step toward jettisoning years of misguided restraint and once again taking constitutional limits on government power seriously . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Lisa Knepper .
Lisa Knepper : Judicial activism charges raised by many over health care and Supreme Court . The Associated Press contributed to this report. She says her firm 's study found such `` activism '' does n't exist . Few laws felled by court . Knepper : Both sides slam `` activism , '' demand democratic outcomes , when they like them .