Judicial activism?

Today's Oregonian had an interesting profile of U.S. District Court Judge James A. Redden, who has consistently been a thorn in the side of the federal government's efforts to protect salmon runs. Those efforts date back to the first Bush administration, and Redden, the story said, "has made no secret of his intense concern about the seriousness of the threats to Pacific salmon."

But is that concern based on the law? On science? On his personal opinion? Or some combination thereof?

Based on this quote of Redden, I'm wondering if his personal opinion is getting in the way:

These are important cases, especially Endangered Species Act cases. I think of the salmon, the wild salmon, as worth trying to save.

Whether the salmon are worth saving is irrelevant to this discussion. Judicial opinions should be shaped on what the law says. Does his quote sound like someone who's ruling solely on the law? Like someone who is taking the facts into account? Or like someone whose personal views are interfering with his ability to interpret the law?

The story talks about Redden's history as a Democratic lawmaker, including his key role in shaping the state's open beaches law in the 1960s. It ends with two quotes from Redden, one about removing politics from the discussion, and one about using science to shape the decisions.

Quote 1:

I have said, and I still believe, that we can do it without breaching those dams. I've got to say, let's get the politics out of this and see what we can do with our brains.

And Quote 2:

I think the Endangered Species Act gives us a way to have power and irrigation, and transportation and salmon. What it takes is using science to find the way to do that. I know enough about the science now to think that it is highly probable, and if we don't, it will be because we didn't try.

Based on his first quote about the "worthiness" of saving wild salmon, I view the likelihood that Redden is ignoring politics or relying on science to be questionable at best.