Stones Cry Out

The phrase "judicial activism" has been abused. Like many others who prefer to find fault with liberals than conservatives, you seem to subscribe to the idea that liberal judges deserve criticism for their "activist" tendencies because they are more likely than conservative judges to overturn existing law or by virtue of their decisions to create new laws where none existed before. Although this definition of activism is generally agreed upon, the widely repeated accusation that liberal judges are more likely to engage in this abuse of power is false.

As an example, consider the following inclination of SCOTUS justices to overturn existing Congressional laws:

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 %

Based on these numbers, one must conclude that conservative Supremes are much more likely than their liberal counterparts to engage in "judicial activism". And thus, since you advocate "judicial restraint", in the future you should show your support for appointment of liberal-leaning judges.

Source: NYT July 6 Op-Ed by Gewirtz and Golder