Replies

Assuming that judicial activism was necessary and needed as to matters of race (actually, the legal superstructure for it was far more secure than it is for gay marriage, because the 14th amendment was written with race in mind, and race is one of those indelible and visible things that affects us every waking moment), does that give SCOTUS a hunting license wherever under the sun it chooses to go? Race in some ways is a sui generis issue, and to use it as the linchpin for analysis about everything is misguided. Race certainly killed off what was left after the Civil War of states rights as a legal doctrine with any legal traction. One can debate about whether that was a good thing, or a bad thing, but it certainly was and is an indelible legacy. Where might the judicial hunters (poachers?) go next, and where are the boundaries, and how does one enforce such boundaries, assuming one thinks there should be any?

We have veered away from the discussion at hand, the decision by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, to a discussion about SCOTUS.

In this case, the SCOTSOM (Supreme Court of the State Of Massachusetts) acted in perfect accordance to the State's Constitution.

They reached a decision that the current laws pertaining to marriage in the State violated the civil rights of some of its citizens, and ordered the legislation to re-write the laws to bring them into Constitutional compliance.

What's the problem with that?

Answer: most people in here do not like the decision, and will call it activism for that reason.