Thomas most activist, Breyer least activist

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's what fraction of the time they choose to strike down a Congressional law. The 4 most liberal judges are the least activist.

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 %

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

"Upholding the Constitution"? What do you mean by that? Do you support Marbury vs. Madison?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

"Upholding the Constitution"? What do you mean by that? Do you support Marbury vs. Madison?

Oh, well, since you won't answer, I'll just lay down my arguments for either answer.

YES: So you support judicial activism?
NO: So you don't support judges being able to declare a law UnConstitutional?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

So you're arguing that judicial review isn't activist?

Also, if you read here, there was some strange reasoning behind the ruling. If the judges had ruled how they felt like, Jefferson may have ignored the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Well, according to the article this was the first time it was done, and it wasn't done against until the activist Dred Scott ruling in 1857. What I'm arguing is that judicial review, which is standard practice now as opposed to 200 years ago, is basically judicial activism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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]

OK, fair enough.
The only problem is that deciding what is Constitutional is subjective. The court has made many an activist conservative ruling like the Southern Pacific vs. Santa Clara county one.