"Judicial Activism", Prop 8 and the LDS Chruch, Part 1

The California Supreme Court's decision In re Marriage Cases was roundly criticized as "judicial activisim.

But what is "Judicial Activism"? For me this is the key understanding all these issues. The conservative organization Focus on the Family defines "Judicial Activism" as:

Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs. (see here)

of course, nary a conservative organization considered the District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller
in which the court invalidated and interpreted the 2nd amendment, as an example of "Judicial Activism", never mind that the court overturned a highly popular law in Washington D.C.

Basically "Judicial Activism" is used when "conservatives" don't like a decision, even though it may be based on judicially logical reasoning. The Focus on the Family site has an interesting note on "Judicial Activisim':
\

" Q. But I've heard that liberal, activist courts are the defenders of minority rights. Is that true?

A. Absolutely false! Let's look at the issues of slavery and segregation.

• In 1820, Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and outlawed slavery in the new territories created in that legislation. The Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision overturned the anti-slavery portions of the Missouri Compromise and affirmed that slaves were indeed "property."
• In 1865, Congress and the states (not the courts) passed the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. In 1875, Congress banned all racial segregation. Yet the Supreme Court in 1883 held that legislation to be unconstitutional.8 Then, in 1896, the Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities were valid under the 14th Amendment,9 another amendment passed in the wake of the Civil War in response to slavery. It took the Supreme Court almost 60 years to reverse itself on that issue, declaring that "separate but equal" was "inherently unequal." That case, Brown v. Board of Education,10 is almost always used (incorrectly, as history teaches us) to support the notion that the Supreme Court is the protector of civil rights."

This is such an incorrect answer. I can list a large number of cases that have protected the rights of minorities, such as Loving. v Virigina (ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.) or Olmstead v. L.C. (striking down laws discriminating against mental disabilities). This list goes on an on. Also, the examples that are used are old, and the exception!

So was the Court decision in the Marriage cases Judicial Activism? Really it depends on who you ask. However, should we use the ballot box to overturn unpopular decision?

Personally, I believe that overturing court decision that are unpopular can set a dangerous precedent. The role of the courts is the protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What if the Perez v. Sharp decision had been overturned by the voters? The decision was highly unpopular in California, since it allowed a non-white to marry a white person. If that had been overturned, I could not have legally married my wife! As such, It is important to consider the impact that overturning judicial decision has.

What makes this country different, is the role that the judiciary has played in the development of our democracy. In totalitarian and authoritarian countries, the judiciary is an extension of the government, and is not an independent co-equal branch of the government. While the courts have on occasion reflected public opinion, it has not. Think about it, if the courts always reflected public opinion, we would still have slavery, discrimination, etc.

More to come....(sorry of any mispelling)

McCain + NATO + Georgia = Crazy!!!!

From Politico:

"NATO’s decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision," McCain argues.

The treaty organization's Article 5 states that an attack on any member is an attack against all, and and commits all members all members to defend any member that's attacked; so Georgian membership would, in theory, commit the U.S. to war with Russia in a future conflict. The argument in favor of membership is that Russia wouldn't dare test whether that's a bluff.

Is John McCain crazy? If NATO had admitted Georgia, we would be obliged to fight the Russian in Central Asia. How can McCain honestly says that NATO should reconsider - or is simply posturing, naked posturing? This is the kind of blind diplomacy that got Europe into WWI. Would it be worth it for the US to get into a fight with Russia over an are the size of LA County?

I hope people don't see this as "Presidential", but it is not, it's simply lunacy.