Legal experts are shocked by a new survey showing more than half of Americans believe "judicial activism" has reached a crisis stage, according to the ABA Journal.

"These results are simply scary," said Charles G. Geyh, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington.

The American Bar Association publication, which commissioned the poll, said 56 percent of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with the following two statements:

• A U.S. congressman has said, "Judicial activism … seems to have reached a crisis. Judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore traditional morality."

• A state governor has said that court opinions should be in line with voters’ values, and judges who repeatedly ignore those values should be impeached.

"These are surprisingly large numbers," Mark V. Tushnet, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., told the ABA Journal.

The Opinion Research Corp. called 1,016 adults nationwide in early September, but did not include residents of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, due to Hurricane Katrina.

The survey found 46 percent strongly or somewhat agreed with the opinion expressed in a third statement:

• A U.S. congressman has called judges arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable.

The ABA Journal said younger adults were less likely than older adults to agree with all three statements.

Those with a college education were more likely to disagree with the statements than high school graduates, the survey indicated.

The congressman referenced in the first question is Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, speaking at an April 2005 rally in Washington, D.C.

The governor in the second question is Matt Blunt, a Missouri Republican, reportedly in an interview with a religious publication in May 2005.

The congressman in the third question is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who made the comment in March 2005.

Georgetown's Tushnet told the Journal he didn't realize the level of dissatisfaction was so high.

"What I had thought was the case was that there was a significantly higher residue of general respect for the courts," he says. "And these numbers suggest that that's not true."

John O. McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, said that problem has been developing over a long time.

"I think, for most of [the past] century, the idea of the Constitution as a document that should be interpreted formally and without regard to the judge's own values has been under attack."

Referring to recent judicial nominee hearings on Capitol Hill, McGinnis said lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are conducting judicial confirmation hearings as though the candidates' personal political views are relevant.

"Everyone thinks that's what [judges] do, and they just want their own values" to be reflected by the judiciary, McGinnis said.