by TChris

The same Senate Republicans who decry "judicial activism" want to end the ability to filibuster judicial nominations. Writing in Mother Jones, Bradford Plumer makes the interesting point that the filibuster saves courts from judicial activists.

The strongest argument for the judicial filibuster is that it forces presidents to pick moderate judges. Recall that Bill Clinton, faced with a hostile Republican Congress that had already scuttled many of his judicial picks, decided to play it safe with his Supreme Court picks and went with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. ... According to a study by former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, if one defines "judicial activism" as a willingness to strike down state and federal laws, then Ginsburg and Breyer are in fact the two most restrained justices on the court. If you don't like activist judges, the case for the judicial filibuster seems strong.

In fact, Republicans favor judicial activism. They want judges who will actively disregard the Bill of Rights and civil rights laws in favor of the religious right's agenda. Indeed, one of the judicial nominees whose consideration may trigger the nuclear option is an unabashed judicial activist.