Why? Because they held to the letter of the law of the constitution?The Constitution in Exile movement believes that many of the laws underpinning the modern welfare state are unconstitutional. (See The Unregulated Offensive, New York Times magazine, April 17, 2005) The "exile" began in 1937 when the Supreme Court finally stopped declaring Roosevelt's New Deal programs unconstitutional.
One of the movement's better-known adherents is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1995 he wrote an opinion for the 5-4 majority in United States v. Lopez, striking down a federal law banning guns in school zones. Thomas' position makes originalists such as Scalia look almost moderate by comparison. From the New York Times' article:
... most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.
Why The greatest right of all, according to adherents of this movement, are economic rights, particularly the right to property, and anything that takes away those rights -- such as environmental or workplace safety laws -- are, or should be, unconstitutional.
| Dominionism and The Constitution in Exile Movement
Try putting that in your own words.
What does that mean to you?
I'm not really interested in someone else's statements.
It means these two judges are right wing judicial activists.