[NonValueAdded]

I disagree ... a simple majority ballot initiative is not an end run around the Constitution. Supporting such a move is what I'd call activism. Support the petition pertained to an enumerated right, such as the second amendment ... if a majority of lily-livered liberals in a small blue enclave passed an initiative petition to confiscate all firearms, the 2nd amendment be damned, would it be judicial activism to say, "sorry, you can't do that in that manner?" No, it would be upholding the constitution in classic strict-constructionist tradition. Don't play the Slime's game. This is exactly how they want to turn us against Roberts. Don't let the RATs define your terms! It isn't pro-gay to overturn a wrongly decided law that would open up all sorts of slippery-slope problems later on. Watch the bigger picture.

[afnamvet]

Thank you for your response. I am very willing to hear Roberts testimony.

I'm hoping the President selected a nominee that is an originalist but none of us can be assured that John Roberts is in that category.

[ModelBreaker]

if a majority of lily-livered liberals in a small blue enclave passed an initiative petition to confiscate all firearms, the 2nd amendment be damned, would it be judicial activism to say, "sorry, you can't do that in that manner?

But this underlines the problem in Romer v. Evans. In the hypothetical you pose, there is an amendment to the constitution that directly addresses the issue--the right to keep and bear firearms. So it is not judicial activism to apply the constitution as written. But in Romer, the case Judge Roberts helped in, there is not any constitutional provision setting up homosexuals as a specially favored class that you cannot discriminate against. The supremes in Romer invented that right and put it in the constitution. That is judicial activism.