Alito

[ScreamingEagle]

you may want to look up the study last year which attempted to measure judicial activism. Republican-appointed judges were found to be the greater judicial activists, as measured by willingness to overturn precedent.

This whole idea of liberal judicial activist judges, in other words, is a figment of the Republican direct-mail-campaign imagination.

Mariner.

OK, I tried to look up the study you referred to but only could find this "judicial study" reported in the New York Times. If this is NOT what you meant, please advise.

So Who Are the Activists?
By PAUL GEWIRTZ and CHAD GOLDER
Published: July 6, 2005
New Haven

WHEN Democrats or Republicans seek to criticize judges or judicial nominees, they often resort to the same language. They say that the judge is "activist." But the word "activist" is rarely defined. Often it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees.

In order to move beyond this labeling game, we've identified one reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism, and we've used it to assess the records of the justices on the current Supreme Court.

Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That's because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy. In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act "of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear." Until 1991, the court struck down an average of about one Congressional statute every two years. Between 1791 and 1858, only two such invalidations occurred.

Of course, calling Congressional legislation into question is not necessarily a bad thing. If a law is unconstitutional, the court has a responsibility to strike it down. But a marked pattern of invalidating Congressional laws certainly seems like one reasonable definition of judicial activism.

Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.

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 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

To say that a justice is activist under this definition is not itself negative. Because striking down Congressional legislation is sometimes justified, some activism is necessary and proper. We can decide whether a particular degree of activism is appropriate only by assessing the merits of a judge's particular decisions and the judge's underlying constitutional views, which may inspire more or fewer invalidations.

Our data no doubt reflects such differences among the justices' constitutional views. But it even more clearly illustrates the varying degrees to which justices would actually intervene in the democratic work of Congress. And in so doing, the data probably demonstrates differences in temperament regarding intervention or restraint.

These differences in the degree of intervention and in temperament tell us far more about "judicial activism" than we commonly understand from the term's use as a mere epithet. As the discussion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement begins, we hope that debates about "activist judges" will include indicators like these.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/o...774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

This "study" seems a bit disingenuous as the meaning of "judicial activist" varies according to one's conception of the definition. The definition of "judicial activism" is itself an intense ongoing debate.

Judicial activism, according to the right
The right tends to argue that judicial activism is the process of ignoring, or at least selectively choosing, precedent in order to hand down rulings which dramatically expand personal freedoms, such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. They also complain that stare decisis (or worse yet, foreign precedent) is sometimes used to trump the original meaning (or, in some cases, the Original intent) of the text, or that the text is given so broad a construction as to render it almost infinitely malleable.

Judicial activism, according to the left
The left tends to argue that judicial activism is primarily manifested as striking down statutes enacted by Congress, or paying insufficient deference to a co-ordinate branch of government. They argue that conservative judges are willing to use a strict construction of the Constitution to frustrate the essentially democratic character of the Constitution

"Neutral" definitions
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, judicial activism is "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent".

According to Black's Law Dictionary, judicial activism is "a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent."

Others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

 

[Hobbit]

Overturning a precedent or a congress-enacted law is nothing new. What I call judicial activism is when a justice uses rights and principles not found in the Constitution to do so, or when they re-interperet the Constitution in ways that grossly violate original intent. It also annoys me when they make a ruling they claim is in favor of a certain right when that right is not the one at issue. Roe vs. Wade was all three.

Then there's the whole foreing precendent thing. That REALLY riles me up. Those foreign rulings didn't have to comply with U.S. law or the Constitution, so they should carry no weight here, whatsoever.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Overturning a precedent or a congress-enacted law is nothing new. What I call judicial activism is when a justice uses rights and principles not found in the Constitution to do so, or when they re-interperet the Constitution in ways that grossly violate original intent. It also annoys me when they make a ruling they claim is in favor of a certain right when that right is not the one at issue. Roe vs. Wade was all three.

Then there's the whole foreing precendent thing. That REALLY riles me up. Those foreign rulings didn't have to comply with U.S. law or the Constitution, so they should carry no weight here, whatsoever.

Exactly. Basing "judicial activism" on how many times they strike down Congressional laws is pretty dumb imo. Let's say Congress enacted a law (pick anything) about something that liberals hated and opposed. I'd bet there would likely be more "judicial activists" among liberal judges than among conservative ones.

 

[Emmett]

Judge Alito:

Are you a decent guy?

Do you encourage equal treatment for all citizens of the US and will you make decisions that are conducsive with this?

Will you hold steadfast to the Constitution, and in the event that you make a decision that may assist in changing a law will you write a conclusive decision that will help everyone understand why?

OK Mr. Kennedy you have 27 minutes to ask your question, you'll need to talk fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[manu1959]

Exactly. Basing "judicial activism" on how many times they strike down Congressional laws is pretty dumb imo. Let's say Congress enacted a law (pick anything) about something that liberals hated and opposed. I'd bet there would likely be more "judicial activists" among liberal judges than among conservative ones.

i think that the judge that gave a self confessed child molester 60 days because he doesn’t think our prison system helps these types of criminals could be considered an activist judge....and if his decision is overturned by a more conservative judge then that would count as overturning a precedent...

how about all the crazy stuff the 9 circus court does....almost all of theirs are overturned.....all of those would count as well......


so i think i have it now......the crazy liberal activists make stupid decisions setting "precedent"...they get overturned by sane people....then they scream activist!

brilliant

 

[manu1959]

Judge Alito:

Are you a decent guy?

Do you encourage equal treatment for all citizens of the US and will you make decisions that are conducsive with this?

Will you hold steadfast to the Constitution, and in the event that you make a decision that may assist in changing a law will you write a conclusive decision that will help everyone understand why?

OK Mr. Kennedy you have 27 minutes to ask your question, you'll need to talk fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ted "i killed her but couldn't find a phone till I sobered up" kennedy would spend his 27 minutes pontificating about his superrior moral and ethical values then fly of to the family compound for cocktails and a bit of night golf.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Not televising them would shorten them considerably.

Aw, but then we would miss watching Teddy making an even bigger hypocritical buffoon of himself than we thought possible.

 

[Emmett]

dont get me started on the 9th.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Gee - if only that's what "judicial activism" meant...

Very clever ploy, Mariner. By inventing a new definition out of whole cloth, your friends get to frame the debate! Why don't we just say that Democrats were found to be greater supporters of Islamic terrorism, as measured by their choice of lawn care products? It makes about as much sense.

The willingness to overturn bad precedent in defense of the U.S. Constitution scarcely qualifies as "judicial activism", as I'm sure you know. Bad law should remain because...it's THERE!!?? Is THAT what you're saying?

You said it perfectly. Our friend either doesn't know or won't admit the meaning of judicial activism.

 

[Emmett]

Aw, but then we would miss watching Teddy making an even bigger hypocritical buffoon of himself than we thought possible.

How did he ever squeeze through that window? That must explain the scratch marks on poor Mary Jo's back!


He is the sole biggest disgrace to the US Senate that has ever sat in that chamber!

 

[Abbey Normal]

A couple more of our Teddy bear:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Kennedy and other Dims went on the attack today and accused Alito of guilt by association, a well-known tactic used by totalitarians such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Dems link Alito with conservative Princeton group

Washington -- Angry partisan shots broke the relative calm of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee today as Sen. Edward Kennedy demanded a subpoena of records kept by the defunct Concerned Alumni of Princeton to see whether Alito was more active in the group than he has claimed.

Kennedy, the Senate's liberal lion from Massachusetts, read inflammatory excerpts from the group's materials, demonstrating its anti-gay, anti-minority and anti-female sentiments. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein egged Kennedy on from the sideline -- insisting that he read full quotations -- until Kennedy asked her to desist.

Democrats have proved unable so far to land blows on Alito's judicial approach and record, and the move appeared to be a last-ditch effort to derail the judge's path to confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. The committee has scheduled a vote on the nomination next Tuesday followed quickly by a Senate vote Jan. 20, but Democrats have reserved the right to delay that by a week.

Kennedy demanded that the committee go into executive session to vote on the subpoena, and warned committee chairman Arlen Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican, that he would demand votes "again and again and again" until the matter was resolved -- a kind of mini-filibuster in the committee.

Showing the first signs of taking umbrage through hours of grueling testimony, Alito vigorously disavowed a 1983 essay from the group's magazine that Kennedy quoted, "In Defense of Elitism."

Kennedy quoted the essay saying, "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and Hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."

Feinstein interjected, urging Kennedy to "finish the last line," which added women to the screed.

Alito said he disagreed with the entire quotation. "I would never endorse it," Alito said. "I never have endorsed it. Had I thought that that's what this organization stood for, I would never associate myself with it in any way."

cont.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/11/MNGSAGLMV924.DTL

 

[no1tovote4]

Alito has been running rings around them. I don't think it matters anyway, these people decided before these 'hearings' (read hearings as 'photo op') began how they were going to vote, mostly on party lines. This is just to make it so the Ds can say that they 'tried' to oppose him and the Rs can say that they defended him honorably...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Alito has been running rings around them. I don't think it matters anyway, these people decided before these 'hearings' (read hearings as 'photo op') began how they were going to vote, mostly on party lines. This is just to make it so the Ds can say that they 'tried' to oppose him and the Rs can say that they defended him honorably...

True, he has. However, I think it is important to point out the totally low-life and un-American totalitarian tactics of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Any self-respecting Democrat should resign from their party after today's dispicable display. :nine:

 

[manu1959]

is it just me or is the "employee" smarter than those "interviewing" him and attempting to trip him up?

the repubs suck up to him knowing he is smarter and the dims go at him thinking he is dumb......

they should really let the sitting justices grill the guy....let the elected morons watch then let them vote.

 

[manu1959]

watching todays hearings....

once again i would like someone to point out the line in the constitution where it says:

a woman is guaranteed an abortion as a constitutional right

i still can't find it....can someone help me out....feinstien, schumer, and kennedy all have seem to have found it....

 

[manu1959]

still watching the hearings......


interesting question:

if lacy pederson had had an abortion to kill conner......nothing would have happened to her

but

since scott petterson murdered conner......he gets the death penalty

trippy

 

[Emmett]

Spector: Could you guys please limit your time of asking questions to 3 hours.Judge Alito, stop butting in on them while they are butting in on you during your answer. Just answer yes or no so they can go on with their questions / statements so we wrap this up by 2007. OK Mr. Kennedy, continue your question, the judge won't interrupt you with answers anymore!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Judge Alito:

Are you a decent guy?

Do you encourage equal treatment for all citizens of the US and will you make decisions that are conducsive with this?

Will you hold steadfast to the Constitution, and in the event that you make a decision that may assist in changing a law will you write a conclusive decision that will help everyone understand why?

OK Mr. Kennedy you have 27 minutes to ask your question, you'll need to talk fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, you have to give Teddy baby a break. He needs to excuse himself every five minutes or so for that,,,uh,,,,brandy break.

Course, if I had on my conscience what he does, I think I would want to stay drunk too. Its unfortunate some are stupid enough to vote for him, well, rather, angry and hateful enough at repubs anyways.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A couple more of our Teddy bear:

Abby, your killing me!

You ever notice when the libs try that stuff on Bush and Cheney, etc, its always the same ol, same ol crap, not even funny. Man, those pics are hilarious! VEry creative too.

can we email them to the "good" senator?

Im actually happy now that he is around, what entertainment value!