Think Progress

Judicial Restraint?

By Judd Legum on Nov 1st, 2005 at 11:21 am

“Sam Alito is just what George Bush is looking for: a big government conservative who will almost always side with the government against the individual, and the federal government against the state” â€“ Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano, 11/1/05 (via Hit and Run)

Comments
5

5 Responses to “Judicial Restraint?”

Opie says:

Going down the road feeling bad…
November 1st, 2005 at 11:25 am
Average TV Viewer says:

“Atilla has workt on hunerdts o’ cases”-W
November 1st, 2005 at 11:45 am
kindness says:

Don’t wanna be feelin’ this ole way.
November 1st, 2005 at 11:48 am
Zippy the Other Pinhead says:

yeah — so much for the Federalism and states’ rights that the repugs spout off so often about…
November 1st, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Ryan Neat says:

Republican appointed SCOTUS judges are twice as likely to exercise judicial activism as some of their ‘liberal’ counterparts. If judicial restraint is what bush wants, he clearly should have appointed a liberal.

Judicial activism is defined as the act of a judge striking down a congressional law. SCOTUS 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 %
November 1st, 2005 at 8:03 pm

Judicial Restraint?

Judicial Restraint?

5 Responses to “Judicial Restraint?”

Blogroll