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.
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.
the republican mantra for a long time has been: Elect Governors and Presidents because they appoint the judges. Control the courts, control the constitution. Perhaps before the end of Obama's eight years, the right wing justices assault on the 4th amendment will be stopped.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
This is not exactly clear, so by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of laws made by Congress is "judicial activism"?
This is not exactly clear, so by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of laws made by Congress is "judicial activism"?
*******************************
Well, if you believe that laws that Congress enacts are part of the legislative process, then those who strike down those laws would be seen as "activists", yes.
This is not exactly clear, so by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of laws made by Congress is "judicial activism"?
Well, the common description I've heard Republicans give for "judicial activism" is "legislating from the bench" or "making law instead of ruling by the letter of the law" or something of that sort. What is overturning the will of the legislative body if not "making law?"
Now mind you, I understand that all this crap about "judicial activism" the Republicans go on about is a bunch of bullshit. They love judicial activism if it's right wing activism. And they hate any liberal ruling, whether it's activism or not. "Judicial activism" as it is commonly use is really just a code phrase for "liberal."
The numbers and percentages really tell us nothing about why the laws are struck down. A strict constructionist can find more things to throw out than a liberal Justice.
For example one who is strict looks closely at the letter of the law to determine if the law fits into the construct of the constitution. When it is determined that t does not, he would say the ;law is unconstitutional.
OTOH a liberal would look at the law and determine that it is something that the Founders should have said and would have said if the conditions existing now existed then.
The activist would be the one who interprets the law in the modern light bhelieving that the constitution is a living Document and subject to change.
Numbers don't lie, but you need to discover the reason for the numjbers. And the fact is that your argument is meaningless until you know why Thomas ruled the way he did.
Well, the common description I've heard Republicans give for "judicial activism" is "legislating from the bench" or "making law instead of ruling by the letter of the law" or something of that sort. What is overturning the will of the legislative body if not "making law?"
Ruling on the constitutionalty of existing law is their *job*! And it's their *only* job! There is a *huge* difference between applying the litmus of the Constitution to a given law, and ruling up or down, and *re-writing* an existing law to suit their interpretation. In the latter case, the judges *usurp* the powers of the Congress.
Now mind you, I understand that all this crap about "judicial activism" the Republicans go on about is a bunch of bullshit. They love judicial activism if it's right wing activism. And they hate any liberal ruling, whether it's activism or not. "Judicial activism" as it is commonly use is really just a code phrase for "liberal."
I can see where you would think that, from your perspective. But the reality is that by and large, Republicans(I prefer Conservatives) are *much* more strict constructionists than Liberals usually are. And the result, of course, is therefore more examples of judicial activism. Liberals, and their "living document" excuse, feel much more free to re-write law to suit *their* newest living document interpretations as they see them.
What is overturning the will of the legislative body if not "making law?"
making law is interpreting the constitution to fit an ideology that does not fall under the original intent of the document that defines our society
is the supreme court there to make law ?...or to interpret the law that is already made....(230 years ago)
the will of the legislative body must comply with the law (the constitution ) which defines them and the law...when it does not comply with the law (the constitution)
it is not law............that is why the supreme court is there
the will of the legislative body must comply with the law as they legislate
the will of the court must comply with the law as they interpret what the law is...not write new law
making law is interpreting the constitution to fit an ideology that does not fall under the original intent of the document that defines our society *************************
That is true.
And you violate it daily. [and, I bet that makes you hopping mad]
By the manner in which you rail against everything that has happened in the nation since the Constitutional Convention of 1789. You want a confederation... it ain't gonna happen buckwheat.
By the manner in which you rail against everything that has happened in the nation since the Constitutional Convention of 1789. You want a confederation... it ain't gonna happen buckwheat.
Stupid answer. Buckwheat.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
Ruling on the constitutionalty of existing law is their job! And it's their only job!
No kidding, buckwheat. But according to you guys if one doesn't do that with a radical right-wing predisposition, it's evil "judicial activism."
Not the girls I run with. Strict constructionism is exactly that, with no wiggle room for agendas for either side, party, or whatever. The history of rulings on the 2nd is a pretty good example.
No kidding, buckwheat. But according to you guys if one doesn't do that with a radical right-wing predisposition, it's evil "judicial activism."
Can there be anything more judicially active that saying the Consti9tution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage? The strict constructionists would say that is the 10 Amendment and i9s left up to the states.
The activists would read the right to marry is granted by the constitution and it asllows you to wed your dog if you like.
gosh potese, I would love to read a post, article, letter, piece, pamphlet or any such thing by an activist who is trying to say it is constitutional to wed your dog. Put up or admit that you continue as either liar or total idiot. Don't post something by some rightwing raving lunatic that thinks he is a pastor. Post the actual words of a proven activist.
Liar Liar, potese is still a liar.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The SCOTUS has to clean up all the crappy laws passed by liberal lawmakers.
It would be interesting to see if those numbers correlate with citizen-inspired work such as state-wide ballot initiatives and amendments to state and local constitutions.
*****
You learn to know a pilot in a storm.
-Seneca
gosh golly gee wiz, how many Republican presidents had the opportunity to veto those crappy laws? I expect the republicans have passed more than their far share of bullshit laws.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
