Darn activist judges

So, if you don't like activist judges - that is, judges who vote to strike down Congressional laws - then you must not like judges like Clarence Thomas.

Now, I myself have no problem with so-called "judicial activism." If a law is unconstitutional or unjust, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to take action and strike down such laws. But some very vocal folks (who lean to the right) have long decried judges who are "activists." So, a Yale law professor and student have examined just who are the activists on the current Supreme Court. Here's what they found:

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 %
OÂ’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.

I never cared much for rhetoric. I care even less for it when it's entirelyinaccuratee and devoid of any basis in reality. The idea that judicial activism is somehow inherently wrong is infuriating enough; the fact that judicial activism is actually practiced to a far greater degree by the most conservative judges is even more so. It's fine to disagree with an ideology. But make sure you're actually disagreeing with the RIGHTideology...