Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist

[A18]

Judicial activists are judges who use the power of judicial review to overturn laws for the purpose of shaping government policy, rather than upholding the Constitution. It isn't just about striking down laws.

I'd be more interested in looking at state laws, anyway.

[A18]

Not my particular take, but the actual, informed interpretation of it.

Yes, you can interpret the "United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" to mean that John Kerry was not eligible to be elected president, and that every Democratic senator is not really a senator. And that would be judicial activism.

We're not talking about 'particular' takes; we're talking about completely making stuff up and ignoring framing intent, as in the above example, as in Roe v. Wade, as in upholding the New Deal, as in countless other decisions.

Tell me. Is it cheesy for me to call something wrong because I disagree with it?

[A18]

Hmm ... actually in most arguments I've had with my conservative friends they argue that "Judicial Activism" is about the judiciary overturning the "will of the people".

The will of which people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change.

Judicial activism is about making decisions in an intentional effort to bring about social or political change. In other words, the politicization of the judiciary.

[A18]

And who is to say what is the "actual, informed interpretation"?

The people who wrote the document. Check out the Federalist Papers sometime.

[A18]

I don't think Marbury v. Madison was an activist ruling. Marbury v. Madison comes right out of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

[A18]

Judicial review is not activist. You know, like I already said earlier in this topic. It's just that state nullification would be more ideal.

[A18]

I disagree. The basis for it was laid by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. This was understood when the document was ratified.

[A18]

I disagree. The basis for it was laid by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. This was understood when the document was ratified.

It's not in the wiki article. If you're so sure, why don't you find a source and add it to the article?

Federalist No. 78

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[/b]

[A18]

Separation of church and state is found nowhere in the Federalist Papers. You're completely clueless.

[A18]

Uh, I didn't deny that the establishment clause exists. I said there's no basis for it in the Federalist Papers, which is why it's dumb to say you've read them, and then talked about the separation of church and state.