The editorial in Today's New York Times screams:

The Court’s Aggressive Term

Well, OK, it doesn't scream, exactly.  It sort of mutters, with a little chin-stroking, head-shaking, and a disapproving tongue-cluck.

The editorial itself is a spot-on indictment of what the radical right would call the John Roberts court's judicial activism, if Roberts were a lefty.  And "activism", with its taint of ideology and tinge of hysteria is more keenly evocative of what's afoot.  In fact, I don't know what else you would call the court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, with its seismic political implications, allowing unlimited corporate spending in election campaigns. 

And yet "aggressive" fits the liberal mold of words that come off as slyly euphemistic and snidely condescending.  It's an All Things Considered sort of word.  You can hear it uttered in that nasally lackadaisical NPR sing-song, the no-reason-to-panic, sense-will-prevail call of complacency.

The Times gets it right further down in the editorial:

When the Roberts court overruled precedent in the Citizens United case,it did so far more abruptly. The dissenters, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the majority “blazes through our precedents” in a “dramatic break from our past.” It was nothing other than judicial activism when the court five months later stepped directly into the gubernatorial race in Arizona,cutting off matching funds to candidates participating in the state’s campaign finance system. The message to other states and cities with similar systems was clear: Watch out. When the Roberts court has a goal in mind, niceties like an actual political campaign cannot be allowed to get in the way.

Calling activism "activism" implies, without much subtlety or nuance, granted, an activism to counteract it.  Calling it "aggression" (which again, granted, it is) has paralyzing layers of implied meaning that need to be unpacked.  You can almost feel the committee being formed to study it. 

To start with, etymologically, the word "aggression" in its present iteration — an "unprovoked attack" — dates back to the early 17th century.  And the word sort of fits here.  Roberts is using his prerogative as Chief Justice  to pick and choose his cases with the clear intention of chipping away at a certain set of precedents.  Roberts is, indeed, aggressively pursuing an ideological agenda.  The Roberts Court is obviously on the offensive.

So why not just call it "activism"?  Well, it could be a belated move to save the word from sharing the fate of that other once rich and noble epithet, "liberal", which the right has succeeded in turning into little more than a smear.  By associating the word "activism" with a negative outcome, you play into the hands of those who view it as an unalloyed evil.

Whatever the case, the liberal cause could only benefit from the abandonment of anemic euphemism (and I can guarantee that airy-fairy concept words like "hope" and "change" are now dead for at least a generation, and good riddance I say) and the adoption of a robust and unapologetically... well, aggressive language of human rights, economic justice, and environmental protection — backed up by bold action on all these fronts.

Because, all rhetoric aside, the best way to save "activism" is to practice activism.