• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judicial activism?


DP Veteran
Jan 22, 2008
Reaction score
Political Leaning
How, exactly, does favoring gay rights constitute judicial activism?

Seriously, when a judge rules a gay discrimination law unconstitutional, they do so because the law typically has no purpose but to discriminate.

People who oppose "judicial activism" typically contrast it with "judicial restraint." They prefer judges to exercise judicial restraint, and, to exercise judicial restraint, judges typically employ rational basis review in their decisions.

However, even rational basis review is insufficient to keep gay discrimination laws in place, as has been demonstrated on many occasions. Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, and, now, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, just to name a few.

Seriously, where do conservatives get the idea that judges who refuse to align themselves with the Homophobic Agenda are merely "judicial activists?" Did it ever occur to these people that maybe, just maybe, they're the ones who are wrong, and that gay discrimination is unconstitutional?
A friend of mine recently posed the question: ""I suppose that a straight judge should recuse himself because he would be biased towards the "traditional" view of marriage? ... Is no one qualified, then, to rule on this issue?"

I found myself laughing out loud and thinking, well there's bound to be those who will bitch about something.
We need eunuch judges!!!
It's judical activism when someone disagrees with a ruling. That's all. It's empty rhetoric that usually lacks legal or logical basis. It's just a buzz term.

Whenever someone is shouting "judical activism!", you will readily find their opponents presenting legal and constitutional citations to back up their arguments.
Judicial activism is just a codeword for "that guy doesn't agree with me"
Didn't some republicans bash Kagan for saying that Thurgood Marshall was one of her favorite Supreme Court justices because he was a judicial activist? It just boggles the mind that someone would bash Marshall.
How, exactly, does favoring gay rights constitute judicial activism?

Technically, he didn't favor gay rights. He struck down Prop 8 on terms of gender discrimination not on terms of discriminating against sexual orientation.
Top Bottom