Six of one, half a dozen of another. The intent to delegitimize is the same in both cases, they were attempting to call rulings illegitimate via the "activist" moniker just as much as "so-called" does. The new rhetoric is just indicative of how far right the party has swung and how little it or its base care for traditional rhetorical norms anymore.
If we wash-away the difference between the two phrases by claiming they are so close as to be practically indistinguishable, then we give permission to move closer to fascism -- as long as each step is is so teeny different than the last.
I really don't get this style of counter-argument here. There is a difference, and that difference is important!
This kind of blurring-differences nonsense is why actual white supremacists and neo-nazis under the name 'alt-right' have emerged and feel it is safe to take part in 'civil' discourse -- they take cover for their hate through the gradual pushing of the boundaries of civil society.