In the second same sex marriage decision declaring the federal Defense of Marriage Act (doma) unconstitutional, there were several steps of judicial activism.Its too bad Justice Kennedy wasnt listening more carefully when President Ronald Reagan said at the justices swearing-in ceremony that, unless judges accept their role to interpret laws, not make them, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks.
On the surface, the Supreme Court did not appear to engage in judicial activism in the Hollingsworth case challenging the lower court ruling that Californias Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, since the Court used the narrow legal doctrine of standing to decide.Under virtually all of these definitions, it is fair to conclude that there was judicial activism, or at least what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called judicial supremacy, in both of the same sex marriage cases.
Since the Governor and Attorney General of California refused to defend the law, and the Supreme Court said the proponents had no standing to appeal the case, the lower court decision stands unchallenged.Blacks, law, dictionary says it is a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors to guide their decisions.
One practical definition of judicial activism is when a court makes a decision with which you disagree.Fortune magazine article by historian Arthur Schlesinger in which he described the sitting.S.Second, in order to satisfy his newly constructed test for the constitutionality of equal treatment for same sex marriages, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, had to find and did conclude that Congress and the President were motivated by a bad animus or purpose.
But taking the two same sex marriage decisions as a case study, to what extent could they fairly be called the product of judicial activism?Hindu marriage ceremony from a Rajput wedding.