so, conservatives on the supreme court are more apt to be judicial activists. interesting. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That's because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy. In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act "of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear." Until 1991, the court struck down an average of about one Congressional statute every two years. Between 1791 and 1858, only two such invalidations occurred.<br><br>Of course, calling Congressional legislation into question is not necessarily a bad thing. If a law is unconstitutional, the court has a responsibility to strike it down. But a marked pattern of invalidating Congressional laws certainly seems like one reasonable definition of judicial activism.<br><br>Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented. <br><br>We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.<br><br>Thomas 65.63 %<br>Kennedy 64.06 %<br>Scalia 56.25 %<br>Rehnquist 46.88 %<br>O’Connor 46.77 %<br>Souter 42.19 %<br>Stevens 39.34 %<br>Ginsburg 39.06 %<br>Breyer 28.13 %<br><br>One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss">link to NY Times article</a><br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
"Judicial activism" is just one of those throw-away terms that conservatives throw around without ever explaining what it means. It's a way to rally the troops for a judiciary that is hostile to wage, discrimination, and environmental law.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
I thought of this post today when reading about the recent decisions by the Supreme Court.<br><br>It's all moot now since the old Rove-DeLay campaign hobby horses of 2004 are all dead, but can we finally put a grave marker for now on the idea of judicial activism being a result of the "liberal judiciary"?<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Very interesting... I had the pleasure of chatting to some American tourists recently outside the High Court in London when they asked how the legal systems compared! I explained that the US Supreme Court had the power to constrain Congress in a way that the English courts did not because Pariiament is said to be supreme (although I personally believe there are limits to that). However I did go on to suggest, it seems from this not strictly correctly, that the power of Presidents to appoint to the Supreme Court which had no parallel in England made its independence more apparent than real.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.