The record shows that the real "judicial activists" are conservatives on Supreme Court

[WI_DEM]

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.

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.

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 %

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

[unpossibles]

1. This doesn't surprise me one bit

in short: Republicans are full of shit about everything they whine about.

[WI_DEM]

2. yep, pretty much so.

[droidamus2]

21. We all know

The Republicans do nothing but project their actions onto their opposition. If they want their justices to be 'activists' what better thing to do than run around accusing all those damn liberal justices of being 'activists' or if the ones making the accusations are Gingrich Republicans that would be 'ultra-liberal unquestionably activist' judges.

[rucky]

3. Kicked, Rec'd, Bookmarked

I'm POSITIVE I'll have to use this article some time in the next few days.

[Soylent Brice]

6. thinking the same thing.

[WI_DEM]

4. Heres some more information from yet another source:

It turns out that Breyer wins the award for Judicial Restraint. Surprisingly, the award for Judicial Activism goes to . . . Justice Scalia. Here are the results:


Table 2: Activism and on the Supreme Court

Justice Rate of upholding agency decisions (percentage points)
Breyer 82
Souter 77
Ginsburg 74
Stevens 71
O’Connor 68
Kennedy 67
Rehnquist 64
Thomas 54
Scalia 52

http://washingtonindependent.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked, recommended and bookmarked.

Thanks for the thread, WI_DEM.:thumbsup:

[WI_DEM]

8. No problem!

[Soylent Brice]

7. nice too see actual figures to back up what we all figured anyways.

K&R

[TheMachineWins]

9. That won't stop the propaganda machine from labeling people "far left"

Facts are just things to be manipulated by whatever current idea pays more.

[thereismore]

10. No. Thomas et al. just do not permit the activist Congress to pass unconstitutional laws.

That's how the right sees it, I guarantee you. In their eyes, Thomas et al. are the guardians of the Constitution from the liberal activist Congress.

[struggle4progress]

11. Yeah, interfering in an election and installing an idiot as President seems "activist" to me

[progressoid]

12. No shit?

But all the LTTEs I read say just the opposite. Go figure.

[book_worm]

13. kick

[barbtries]

14. doesn't surprise me in the least

republicans have made an art of "accusing" the other side of doing exactly what the republicans are in fact doing. up is down. wrong is right. war is peace. the constitution just a goddamn piece of paper.

[malaise]

15. Excellent post

but in the right wing mind, you're only activist if their agenda is stopped.

[katty]

16. no surprise--conservative judicial "activists"-easy to spot

[rawdog]

17. incorrect definition

judicial activism refers to a judge/court that is more prone to make policy rather than to interpret the policy as set forth by the legislature.

the definition that is used by the OP is deceptive and simplistic to say the least.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. RTFL

The author of the Op Ed used in the OP discusses that.

[pinto]

22. "Here is the question we asked..."

Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

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.

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.

<snip>

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.

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

[Faygo Kid]

18. Always been this way. Check the Michigan Supreme Court in recent years.

A Radical Right court appointed by Engler. No matter how many worker, gender, or other civil rights protections that the Michigan Legislature passed, the Michigan Supreme Court ignored them all.

[Faygo Kid]

19. They dissed Lily Ledbetter, and overturned accepted law.

Hell, even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn't expect that free gift.

This whole crapola about liberal courts being activist is hogwash. It's the Reich wing that rules for its masters.