[dirtboy]

After all - it fits in with her topsy-turvy, wacko view of the role of parents in society.

Blame the Texas legislature for the law in question, not the judge. It isn't a judge's proper role to overturn a bad law that is still in alignment with the Texas Constitution - or do you believe that judicial activism is bad, unless your pet cause is at stake? That is what Bork was referring to when he wrote about the Tempting of America - the temptation to throw off legal restraints in pursuit of an agenda.

[KeyBored]

"or do you believe that judicial activism is bad, unless your pet cause is at stake?"

I do believe that judicial activism is bad. But the sad fact is we've strayed so far from the Constitution that we've come to the point where it does exist. And it seems to exist ONLY in one direction.

So, let's accept the fact that it exists AND THAT LIBERALS WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH when it is their PET CAUSE that is at stake.

I, as a Christian first, pro-lifer second, and conservative third would at least like to see those I support politically TAKE A STAND when the question of judicial activism come up in the other direction.

Instead, THEY roll over and play dead - and WE'RE patted on the head and told to shut up and go to the back of the bus.

[Sabertooth]

It isn't a judge's proper role to overturn a bad law that is still in alignment with the Texas Constitution - or do you believe that judicial activism is bad, unless your pet cause is at stake?

How do you define "judicial activism?"