Sandefur on Judicial Activism

If you have any interest at all in constitutional law, I strongly recommend that you read Timothy Sandefur's post on demagoguery and the claim that "unelected judges" are "usurping the will of the people". It's one of those essays you read and think, "Damn, I wish I'd written that. He says exactly what I wanted to say about it." The specific issue is gay marriage and Senator Orrin Hatch's article on the subject here, but what he is really talking about is the broader issue of the role courts were intended to play in our system of government.

When conservatives scream about "activist judges" overruling laws that the people want and how "undemocratic" this is, they are simply showing their ignorance of the historical record. Mr. Sandefur has given us a devestating critique of such demagoguery.

Tags

More like this

I know, I know, you probably think that he's either paying me to link to him or I'm some sort of groupie, but the truth is I just think he tends to express the opinions we share on this subject better than I do, so why reinvent the wheel? And if he keeps writing great stuff on constitutional law I'…
Judge Birch's bold upbraiding of the President and the Congress over the unconstitutional "Terri's Law", which attempted to tell the courts what sort of decision rules they should apply in a case, has attracted some interesting responses. Stephen Henderson's article on the opinion in the Knight-…
The White House has been kind enough to put the text of President Bush's speech advocating the "Marriage Protection Amendment" yesterday on their webpage. It would make a perfect example of illogical argumentation for a logic course. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and…
Rhetorical bombs thrown at courts and judges are a common theme on the right and have been for quite some time. Any judge who rules against them is branded an "activist judge" seeking to impose "judicial tyranny". We hear constant screeds against "unelected judges" who "subvert the will of the…

Ed:
I hope you noticed the following from the Hon. [?] Sen. Hatch's article:

"For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years."

Hatch is a Mormon. A Utah Mormon. He must have cut class in high school they day they discussed polygamy and Brother Brigham and the founding of, I guess we could call it, the "political community" of Young's Great Basin kingdom.

Unless of course by "traditional marraige" he includes marraige between one man and many women. Be fun to ask him sometime.... If so, logic if not simply honesty, should also compel him to include as "traditional marriage" unions between one woman and many men, que no?

By flatlander100 (not verified) on 09 Jul 2004 #permalink