Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist

[Emsworth]

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 absolutely agree. If Congress just happens to pass a series of unconstitutional laws, should judges just sit back and say "let's strike down X percent of them, because if we strike down more, we become activists"?

[Emsworth]

And who is to say what is the "actual, informed interpretation"?  I would think the foremost legal scholars in the land (aka the SCOTUS).

In one sense, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, because there is no further appeal.

In principle, however, it is possible for the Supreme Court to be utterly wrong. The Court has made absolutely horrendous decisions, constitutionally baseless like Dred Scott and Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.

[Emsworth]

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.

With all due respect, jfern, that is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard.

[Emsworth]

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.

With all due respect, jfern, that is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard.

It wasn't an argument, I pointed out that he could add information to it. Or alternatively, he could just link to it here. Obviously the lack of information in a wiki article doesn't prove that he's wrong. You seem to be assuming that I was arguing something that I wasn't.

Fair enough.