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.
To say that a justice is activist under this definition is not itself negative. Because striking down Congressional legislation is sometimes justified, some activism is necessary and proper. We can decide whether a particular degree of activism is appropriate only by assessing the merits of a judge's particular decisions and the judge's underlying constitutional views, which may inspire more or fewer invalidations.
Our data no doubt reflects such differences among the justices' constitutional views. But it even more clearly illustrates the varying degrees to which justices would actually intervene in the democratic work of Congress. And in so doing, the data probably demonstrates differences in temperament regarding intervention or restraint.
(I don't actually find this to be a very useful definition of judicial activism, but that's a topic for another post.)
Activist judges, like so many other things, are in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure the rightwing spinmeisters are aware of this, but it makes good rhetoric to just rant about "activist judges" without getting any more specific.
By 10:01 PM
, atActivist is just a code word for liberal. It's a very effective code word, unfortunately. Most of the people who adamantly believe that judges should "interpret the laws, not make them" have no idea what that distinction means, other than that judges should interpret the laws consistent with conservative principles rather than make laws consistent with a liberal point of view.
<< Home