by TChris

During the debates, President Bush announced that he has only one test for judicial appointments: he won't appoint "activist" judges. Of course, those who toil in the federal courts recognize that many of the conservative judges he favors pursue an activist philosophy. When the Fourth Circuit decides that the Miranda decision doesn't mean what it says, that's activism. When the Seventh Circuit decides that failing to hire a pregnant woman for fear that she won't return to work after having her baby isn't pregnancy discrimination, that's activism. And when Republican-appointed judges refuse to enforce environmental laws, that's activism.

A report (pdf) by the Environmental Law Institute examines the judicial response to lawsuits filed under the National Environmental Policy Act, a 1970 law that requires federal agencies to produce environmental impact statements before undertaking a project that might have a significant environmental impact.

Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents are at least three times more likely than those appointed by Bush to rule in favor of plaintiffs who sue the federal government for violating certain environmental regulations, the report found. ... The report shows that federal district judges appointed by a Democratic president ruled in support of pro-environment NEPA cases 60 percent of the time, while GOP-appointed judges ruled in support 28 percent of the time. (The Bush appointees, by comparison, only ruled in favor 17 percent of the time.)

Bush appointees constitute 23 percent of active federal judges. Can the country afford to have President Bush choosing activist judges for another four years?