Damn those activist judges! Damn them!

[Bosh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

When the Supreme court voted to either unhold or strike down federal laws, here's the % of the time that each Supreme Court judge voted to strike down laws as unconstitutional:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Damn those damn dirty liberals for legislating from the bench and overturning good laws duly voted on by our elected representatives and being all elitist and trampling on the will of the people and whatnot!

[Patroklos]

0.1/10

All laws are created equal, right?

[Theben]

Some are more equal than others.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Patroklos
0.1/10

All laws are created equal, right?

I wasn't saying that it's stupid for strike down laws that are unconstitutional, I was saying that's it's remarkably stupid for conservatives to ***** about judges "legislating from the bench" or being "activist" when conversative judges tend to be far more activist than liberal ones. Do you disagree?

[Drake Tungsten]

What does judicial review have to do with legislating from the bench?

MOMMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT!!!

[ajbera]

It really does depend on the laws in question. Your assumption is that any time a law is struck down as uncostitutional it represents "activism." Some of these laws are no doubt unconstitutional. "Activism" occurs when a proper constitutional law is struck down, or an unconstitutional law is not struck down.

If Stevens, Ginsburg & Breyer are respectively voting down only 39%, 39% and 28% of laws that really are unconstitutional, but they let them stand because of personal belief, then that is activism.

Not saying they are or not (haven't looked into it deeply), just pointing out Bosh's base assumption is flawed.

[Japher]

It isn't Bosh's base assumption, it is the assumption of the article he linked to.

Maybe it's congress that is full of activists? Maybe we need less active ppl on congress? None of these rock the boat type ppl?

Legalize MJ>!!!

[ajbera]

Oops. My apologies to Bosh.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by ajbera
It really does depend on the laws in question. Your assumption is that any time a law is struck down as uncostitutional it represents "activism." Some of these laws are no doubt unconstitutional. "Activism" occurs when a proper constitutional law is struck down, or an unconstitutional law is not struck down.

If Stevens, Ginsburg & Breyer are respectively voting down only 39%, 39% and 28% of laws that really are unconstitutional, but they let them stand because of personal belief, then that is activism.

Not saying they are or not (haven't looked into it deeply), just pointing out Bosh's base assumption is flawed.

The problem with political science is you have to use a measure to be able to measure "activism", in this case the researchers choose how many times they struck down laws, and since you can't measure beliefs I really don't think there is a better measure that is measurable. But this measured is still flawed though, since it seems everybody has a different definition for activism.

[The Mad Viking]

No, you are missing the point.

For years now, we have been listening to righties moan about liberal SCJs "legislating from the bench" whenever they strike down a law as unconstitutional.

They suggest that it is somehow improper.

The post shows that, in fact, this behaviour is twice as common among conservative SCJs.

So, if the practice of striking down laws based on comparing their basis to the constitution is "legislating from the bench", then in fact conservatice indulge in this much more often than liberals.

Apparently it is only "legislating from the bench" if you happen to personally disagree...

Otherwise its solid jurisprudence?

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Activism" occurs when a proper constitutional law is struck down, or an unconstitutional law is not struck down.

The question is what is a 'proper constitutional law' or an 'unconstitutional law'. Reasonable people disagree sometimes on what constitutes what.

[MrFun]

I'm surprised how many people refuse to acknowledge Bosh's point.

[Patroklos]

For years now, we have been listening to righties moan about liberal SCJs "legislating from the bench" whenever they strike down a law as unconstitutional.

The right does not say this, YOU say this.

This is what the right says.

"Activism" occurs when a proper constitutional law is struck down, or an unconstitutional law is not struck down.

Which is of course open to debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The right does not say this

I don't know what you listen to, but yes, the right says that. They moan about "legislating from the bench". It happens every damn time a decision they don't like comes down.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Japher
It isn't Bosh's base assumption, it is the assumption of the article he linked to.

Maybe it's congress that is full of activists? Maybe we need less active ppl on congress? None of these rock the boat type ppl?

Legalize MJ>!!!

Conservatives in Congress are very activist they're just activist about different things then liberals are. Just look at the Shiavo case.