Over the summer, the NY Times had a piece that showed the more conservative Supreme Court justices to be much more likely to inflict their opinions and change established law. The so-called liberal justices were at the bottom of the list, i.e. much less "active." Here's the graphic:
Thomas: 65.63%Justice Thomas is at the top of the list, voting to overturn 65.63% of Congressional laws, whereas liberal Justice Breyer is at the bottom -- with the other liberals.
So the next time you hear a wingnut blabbering about the need for "judicial restraint" or for less "judicial activism," what he/she is really complaining about are judges not ruling or being active enough towards their views. The "active" and "restraint" stuff is all bullsh*t; a justice is A-OK in their book if he/she is active as hell -- for their side. (Oh, and let's not forget this example of judicious careful restraint: the astounding, without-precedent 2000 decision to anoint Bush over Gore).