presidential interview of nominees

[Howard Schweber]

At 08:37 AM 7/20/2005 -0400, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:
>         I think it obvious, but nevertheless worthwhile pointing out, 
> that the term "activism," if it has any serious meaning at all, depends 
> on a correct theory of constitutional interpretation, or one deemed 
> correct by the speaker.


Personally, I find it useful to think of "activism" in terms of three 
distinct issues:

1.  the willingness (or eagerness) of a judge to overrule the judgment of a 
legislature (in any of several ways)
2.  the willingness (or eagerness) of a judge to depart from past precedent
3.  the willingness (or eagerness) of a judge to depart from the "correct" 
mode of constitutional interpretation.  The last one is certainly dependent 
on a prior judgment, but the first two are at to at least some degree 
measurable phenomena.

Howard Schweber 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050720/1b029536/attachment.html