Comments on: Massachussetts Supremes to Reconsider Gay Marriage

By: Just Me

Just Me — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:02:52 +0000

Also, in the Mass case it is hard to say it wasn't activism, since they basically dictated what the law should be, the courts usually indicate where the problem is, and leave it up to the legislature to develop the solution-look at the cases on homosexual marriage in Vermont and Mass, and notice the difference.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:53:32 +0000

Perhaps it's activist because the Supreme Court basically *ordered* the legislature to do something it had no intention of doing. In this instance, the court acted as a sort of "super legislature."

That's activism.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:46:30 +0000

It is merely another religionist concept that courts are âactivistâ. Dumbbell, that is without a doubt the stupidest thing I've ever seen you say. If you've ever surpassed it, I thank a merciful God that I haven't seen you do so.

By: Lt Bell

Lt Bell — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:23:43 +0000

It is merely another religionist concept that courts are "activist".

Our country is not based on the bible but the constitution,
"all men are created equal" even Gay men.

Look to how the religio-facists treat the word "Liberal" for greater insight.

Oh! And lets all pray for Rapture

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:09:37 +0000

When major policy changes are enacted by a court, especially when it overturns longstanding custom, it's considered activist. Paul Johnson at Auburn provides a definition that's as good as any:

The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs.

"Activist" isn't necessarily the same as "wrong." I would argue the Court in Brown was "activist" in the sense that, even though their interpretation of the 14th Amendment was dead-on, it violated an understanding that was nearly a century old.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:46:11 +0000

Well, just because a definition of something is an understanding that pre-dates the existence of anyting is not a reason to call overturning it "judicial activism." I mean, the definition of marriage in the Arab world has been pretty much, "men own women" for thousands of years. Many men in the Arab world believe this, and I've seen many many women in the Arab world who balk at changing the status quo. If it came down to a 50% + 1 majority that believed this, would it mean we should keep it that way?