[elwoodblues]

Do you really think this article isn't a prime example of the very "tragedy of our time" that he denounces?

The article begins by stating that "the painful reality is that the supreme examples of lawlessness in our times are in the august and sedate chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States."

It then misleads readers into thinking that the US Supreme Court made a recent decision on gay marriage. This is simply false. The recent gay marriage decision was decided by a State Supreme Court interpreting a State Constitution. "The most fundamental issue is not gay marriage. The most fundamental issue is who is to decide whether or not to legalize gay marriage" --- and as good conservatives know, the fundamental issue is that this is a state issue, not a federal one. The gay marriage decision is a great (small federal government) example of the system working --- the state decided/interpreted the state constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
The political left is all for judicial activism, because courts can impose much of the liberal agenda that most elected officials are afraid to impose, such as racial quotas, gay marriage and driving religious expression underground.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is simply a specious argument. The writer wants you to believe that the courts are "imposing" these movements. The facts bear out otherwise:

Racial Quotas --- existed as a matter of policy in schools, workplaces, etc. The court has never required quotas. In fact, the court has specifically rejected the use of "quotas" despite what the popular belief is.

Gay Marriage: Again, the court was not making up law out of whole-cloth as the article suggests, it was interpreting the Massachusetts constitution, which provides (among other things) that:

[ QUOTE ]
"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of men

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, the Massachusetts Constitution gives the court great power in interpreting laws:

[ QUOTE ]
full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this Search Term Begin constitution Search Term End , as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this Commonwealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Driving Religious Expression Underground: The court has done nothing of the sort (and the article provides absolutely not justification for this assertion). The court has not stated anything about the private expression of religious faith, nor the public expression of that faith insofar as "public" means "out in public" as opposed to an act of the state. Part of the court's (US Supreme Court) charter is to interpret the language of the constitution. Some argue that the language of the constitution is absolutely clear, I think there are lots of gray areas. One of the gray areas deals with the establishment of religion and the extent to which the state's support of religious activity "establishes" the religion. The court is interpreting that meaning. Apparently the writer just disagrees with the court's interpretation.

~elwood