“It’s only judicial ‘arrogance’ or ‘activism’ when they don’t like the decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down popularly supported gun control laws, legislated by the duly elected representatives of the people in DC? Not judicial activism at all.” — http://is.gd/e4lJ1 … FWIW, I’m agnostic on the ruling unless/until I read it.
I have seen no evidence that the restrictive gun laws overturned by Heller were popularly supported. Heller was a law passed by legislators…..Prop 8 was a state Constitutional Amendment overturning an activist judge who changed the meaning of the Constitution.
Um, no, it depends on the underlying constitutional context. Heller showed that there was a fundamental concept of an individual right to bear arms that goes back to the writing of the Bill of Rights. Nobody can argue with a straight face that the concept of gay marriage goes back that far and that the writers of the Constitution and subsequent amendments had homosexual marriage in mind when contemplating equal protection. To get to a gay “right” to marry, you have to fundamentally “evolve” the Constitution and its interpretation, and I’m completely against that — any attempt to do so is clearly “activist”. The legislative process is the appropriate means for dealing with the question of whether the state should recognize homosexual marital bonds, and while there have been a few successes on that front for gay rights proponents, the more typical result is that plebiscitary and legislative efforts have led to rejection of granting legal recognition of gay marriage. Given that the majority are demonstrably opposed to gay marriage, the more appropriate framework within which gay rights supporters should be operating is to change people’s minds about gay marriage. That is already happening as evidenced by the poll trends among the various age groups, but apparently gay rights activists feel the need to impatiently push the issue via the judicial process and force the majority to swallow something they clearly do not yet accept as legitimate. Such behavior tilts me from being agnostic or neutral on gay marriage, to taking the side of the majority and attacking the activists, and I suspect there are millions more who react the same way.
Funny, I can find the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” in the Constitution. Could you direct me to the part that talks about gay marriage (or, for that matter, marriage at all) again? Because I’m having problems finding it. (At least with Loving v. Virginia you can tie it to the 14th Amendment, i.e. “What part of equal rights are you ______ having trouble understanding?”
When Conservatives/Libertarians say “judicial activism,” that usually translates to “Writing in the margins doesn’t make it so, even for a Federal judge.” When Liberals say “judicial activism,” it’s usually means “W-w-ha..? Well those were a bunch of old white slave owners, who cares what they said?!”
Read thenfucking 9th amendment. Also the 14th us fairly instructive on this matter.
“FWIW, I’m agnostic on the ruling unless/until I read it.”
Well then, clearly you’ll remain in this state of Schrödingerian Irresolution either (a) for a quite Considerable time or else (b) for The Duration. Thankfully, some of us suffer under no such pesky restrictions, being perfectly content to Go with whatever brilliant & Spritely synopsis Rachel Maddow hath given us. / Whaddaya, some kinda Know-Something Party fanatic or sumpin’? [“Sumpin.'” / “Shaddup.” :] HOWEVER: If/When you happen by Random chance to Read it, kindly tell us which way your QWF Collapsed. Was it Gnōsis, or was it Gnōt? [Thanks for Gnōthing. ;]
Rachel Maddow hath given us
Well that answer one question…however..do you know the other guy who watches her show? Do you two have a fan club?
Yes, and Yes, gahrie. 🙂
Actually, all the guys & gals (of whatever, um, Persuasions 🙂 who resolutely Don’t watch TRMS are missing out on what is simultaneously — and easily — the most Intelligent and most Entertaining political Advocacy program on television. I.e., Rachel rocks.
I also like to watch O’Reilly sometimes because yer man is often prettygood, Himself. But nobody matches Maddow, who is consistently Excellent.
Recently Bill O’ concisely refuted Rachel’s entire weltanschauung by pointing out that his ratings Wallop hers. :> The next night, with her usual spritely Humor interspersed, she readily acknowledged the mighty viewing-audience Gap, even putting up the Stats to prove it! She then allowed as how she’d still find TRMS well worth doing if the only people watching were her Mother and her Girlfriend.
Which won’t happen though, cuz she’ll also still have Me. / And of course that Other guy in the Fanclub. ;]
P.S. – say, did I mention that I like Rachel Maddow? 🙂