Judicial Activism... I hate that term

My blog has moved!!! Please visit my new blog for all the newest news, events, opinions and more!!!
You will be automatically re-directed in three seconds. Click the link to go to the new blog now. Use the search function on the new blog to find any story you are looking for on here.

Although I do identify as a "conservative," I have a somewhat different opinon from my fellow "conservatives" when it comes to the term "judicial activism." Plain and simple... I hate that term and I hate that it has come to represent a part of the American legal, justice and governmental system which has been in place since the creation of our current form of government in 1789. Many conservatives throw the term "judicial activism" around when discussing marriage equality for LGBT persons. What many people don't seem to get is that the courts and the judges have every right to make a decision on the equality of other people. The judges in Massachussetts, for example, had every right to decide that it was unfair and inequitable for the state to deny marriage to LGBT persons. People brought a lawsuit and the judges decided based upon fairness and equality... they stuck to the ideals upon which our Glorious Republic was founded: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, along with Liberty and Justice for All. To me, "all" should truly mean ALL and if it doesn't, then maybe we should re-think what our American ideals should be. Judges have every right to keep a check on the legislative branch of our government.. that element of our government is in our Constitution and it is called "checks and balances." Many of my fellow conservatives, many of whom I disagree with when it comes to marriage equality, think that judges are "legislating from the bench" and they are scrambling to pass amendments state constitutions and to the federal constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. What they don't get is that if that amendment proves to be discriminatory and unfair under our system of laws and ideals, then the judges will still have the authority to strike it down. If I'm wrong on this matter... someone please tell me. While you are telling me I'm wrong, please explain to me why the courts don't have the right to strike down unfair and inequitable laws, even if they are amendments. So, back to my original thought: The term "judicial activism" is stupid and implies a very incorrect concept. Judges are not legislating from the bench... they are simply upholding our ideals. The anti-gay conservatives need to find a new scapegoat... why you always picking on us gay people?