The Real Judicial Activists

By Miles, Thomas J.; Sunstein, Cass R. | The American Prospect, January-February 2007 | Go to article overview

The Real Judicial Activists


Miles, Thomas J., Sunstein, Cass R., The American Prospect


IN DISCUSSIONS OF "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM," ALMOST everyone focuses on how often Supreme Court justices vote to strike down acts of Congress. These discussions neglect a question that is, in terms of the Court's actual workload, much more important: How often do justices vote to strike down acts of the executive branch?

We attempted to answer that question by compiling a large sample of votes (more than 500) from 1989 through 2005. We were startled by our results.

In a nutshell, the more liberal members of the Court were the most likely to vote to uphold the decisions of the executive branch. The most conservative members of the Court were the least likely to vote to uphold those decisions.

Justice Stephen Breyer voted in favor of the executive 82 percent of the time--the highest pro-executive voting rate on the Court. Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens were next, with an average voting rate in favor of the executive of 75 percent.

Justice Antonin Scalia voted the least often for the executive (52 percent), and Justice Clarence Thomas was close to him (54 percent). Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist showed a somewhat higher pro-executive rate (64 percent). Here as elsewhere, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were exactly in the middle (around 67 percent).

In their willingness to strike down acts of the executive branch, the conservative justices appear to be the most activist, and the liberal justices to be the most modest.

Why are the justices' votes in favor of the executive almost perfectly correlated with popular impressions of the ideological-leanings of the justices? To answer this, we separated the justices' votes by presidential administration. Our analysis was simplified by the fact that about half the votes in our sample were made during the Clinton presidency, while the other halfwere made during one or another Bush presidency. And indeed, we found that the most conservative justices were much more likely to vote in favor of the executive branch under Republican than Democratic rule. Taken as a whole, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas voted in favor of the executive 47 percent of the time under a Democratic president--and 65 percent under a Republican.

But Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg showed no statistically significant decrease in their pro-executive votes under Republican presidents. In fact the four liberal justices voted in favor of the executive under Republican rule at a 73 percent rate--higher than that of the conservative justices. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Real Judicial Activists
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.