Of all the lies and half-truths that spring from the mouths of politicians, the pernicious and pervasive use of the phrase "activist judges" to demean well-intentioned jurists surely is one of the worst. Even the late, great Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist hated the phrase.
Everytime a judge makes a decision, any decision whether you like it or not, that judge is "acting." Even when the Supreme Court decides not to review a case it is "acting." To judge-- to choose between competing arguments-- is to act. Every judge every day, therefore, is an "activist judge" in the honest meaning of the word and, therefore, no judges are the sort of creepy "activist judges" that President Bush and his cronies in Congress want you to be afraid of. Anytime you hear someone call a judge an "activist judge" all it means is that the person doing the calling didn't like the decision the judge just rendered. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So when the President says, as he did today, that "activist courts have left our country with no other choice" than amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, he is really saying two things that aren't exactly true. First, there are plenty of other options aside from a federal constitutional amendment that Americans may choose from to protect marriage-- and, indeed, Americans all over the country are choosing them, in the form of ballot initiatives and state statutes that ban same-sex marriage. And don't forget the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal statute which has been on the books now for about a decade. That, too, is a choice Americans made long ago in on the debate over same-sex marriage.
And, second, the President's bogeyman, "activist courts" (that's "activist judges" to you and me), haven't done anything but interpret a state law here and there in a way that permits same-sex couples to be considered married under the law. If the argument for that position were completely untenable, or even just not likely to be embrace in the future by bright judges, there would be no need for the added layer of protection that conservatives seek to place via the amendment. You want to go after activists? Go after the ones trying to change the constitution. Now, that's an act you don't see performed every day.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: Meridian | June 5, 2006 06:16 PM
Posted by: Roger | June 5, 2006 06:37 PM
Posted by: Anon from DC | June 5, 2006 06:40 PM
Posted by: constituionalist. | June 5, 2006 06:45 PM
Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 5, 2006 07:27 PM
Posted by: MC | June 5, 2006 07:46 PM
Posted by: AC | June 5, 2006 07:48 PM
Posted by: we all need to be afraid of enemy terrorists... | June 5, 2006 08:12 PM
Posted by: constitutionalist | June 5, 2006 08:24 PM
Posted by: MC | June 5, 2006 08:59 PM
Posted by: Stanley Krute | June 5, 2006 10:49 PM
Posted by: Dan | June 5, 2006 11:18 PM
Posted by: I prefer to think that people who | June 5, 2006 11:58 PM
Posted by: Karen | June 6, 2006 01:29 AM
Posted by: Bob | June 6, 2006 02:22 AM
Posted by: Allen | June 6, 2006 07:50 AM
Posted by: DC in DC | June 6, 2006 10:50 AM
Posted by: MC | June 6, 2006 01:13 PM
Posted by: you're all kinda stuff and weird... | June 6, 2006 01:28 PM
Posted by: NIW | June 6, 2006 04:03 PM
Posted by: HerbS | June 6, 2006 11:04 PM
Posted by: an honest question, answer it... | June 7, 2006 12:27 AM
Posted by: Quinn Stilletto | June 7, 2006 12:42 AM
Posted by: the essence of the question... | June 7, 2006 01:05 AM
Posted by: HerbS | June 7, 2006 09:49 PM
Posted by: email@example.com | August 12, 2006 11:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.