Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The real activist judges

The New York Times makes an interesting point:

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%
Hat tip: RWM


Anonymous said...

Specifically conservative judges are quite active in voiding federal laws that allegedly infringe on states' rights, such as federal statutes regulating gun control and violence against women. Except that when the federal law happens to advance a conservative agenda(e.g., drug control) rather than a liberal one (e.g., gun control), the same judges will rule that that Congress is perfectly within its rights to legislate and that contrary state measures, like the California medical marijuana scheme, are therefore trumped.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the conservatives may have been consistent on the Med Jane ruling, as they ruled in favor of States Rights (albiet with the knowledge that they were on the losing side). I am not suggesting that there is clarity on the Right's rulings, but I do disagree with the comment's legal analysis. IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT NOW, THAT LIBERALS GET THIER LEGAL ANAYLSIS STRAIGHT! Otherwise, another 2 Clarence's are what we can expect.