Activist judges - The other issue behind the FMA?

[remfan]

The amendment bans gay marriage, but just as importantly it denies the judicial branch their crucial role in providing a check against the legislative branch.

I've noticed that bush's main theme is "activist judges" making law from the bench and "letting the people (legislatures) decide" this issue. Not a new conservative position, but it's rather significant in how they're putting the idea of "activist" judges out there --- it's bound to become conventional wisdom within the mainstream before long.

Another interesting thing about this is that Robert Bork (Federalist Society) helped to craft the amendment. And even though it's pretty much a certainty that the amendment won't pass, that doesn't mean it's going to just fade away - like the flag burning amendment, it'll be around for a while.

I'm not trying to minimize the implications of the attempt to ban gay marriage through the Constitution, but I'm really starting to believe there is something else being played out here. The GOP wants to open the door to congress being able to limit the judicial branch, not only in this case, but in other cases, and they're doing it by creating the impression that judges are creating laws, which is the furthest thing from the truth.

The arguments against this amendment needs to include the fact that this is also an assault on the judicial branch. The last thing this country needs is to believe that the judicial branch has no role in government.

[Mandate My Ass]

1. Congress has been doing this to the judiciary for a long time

with mandatory minimums and three strikes laws, to name just a few. I've heard the term "potted plant" applied to themselves by frustrated judges because that's what their role in the courtroom has been reduced to. Congress has also of late been ceding their power to the executive branch. Checks and balances will soon be a thing of the past and all decrees will come from on high without debate or recourse.

I believe you nailed this one exactly.

[Mattforclark]

2. It's not an assault on the judicial branch

They have absolutely no problem with Conservative "activist" judges.

It is an assault on the court's power to overturn rules that are found to be unconstitutional. But they would have no problem if some "activist" judges decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example.

[lcooksey]

3. Also a ploy to attract racists

It was "activist judges" who ruled illegal segregation and laws against interracial marriage, who rule on affirmative action, racial discrimination, etc. I think this is a way to reach out to rural white men in the south who are unhappy with a great many things beyond same-sex marriages.

[welshTerrier2]

4. Massachusetts Supreme Court - activists ???

someone posted this a few days ago ... it's a great response to those whining about "activist" judges ... 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by conservative republican governors ...

here's a listing of judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court:

Chief Justice Marshall
Appointed 1996 by Republican Governor William F. Weld. Named chief justice by by the Republican Governor, and current Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci. Cellucci was appointed to his current post by President
Bush.

Justice Cordy
Appointed February, 2001 by the Republican Governor, and current Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Justice Cowin
Appointed 1999 by the Republican Governor, and current Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Justice Ireland
Appointed 1997 by the Republican Governor William F. Weld

Justice Sosman
Appointed 2000 by the Republican Governor, and current Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Justice Spina
Appointed October 1999 by the Republican Governor, and current Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Justice Greany
Appointed 1989 by the Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis.

This information was taken from the following web page:
http://www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/