Theorhetical question: If the Gay Marriage Amendment passed...

[dignan27]

then let's say that someone brought it up to the Supreme Court and the Court reviewed the amendment and knocked it down as unconstituional. Would they be "activist judges"?

[livinginphotographs]

1. I can't remember where I read it,

I think it was the 365gay.com website, but most of these so-called "activist" judges are GOP appointees.

But don't expect logic to get in the way of those Santorum-types.

[brainshrub]

2. "activist judges" is when the court does something the RW doesn't like.

We on the left call it a "Conservative Court" when they do stuff we don't agree with.

[barb162]

6. you put that very succinctly

[franmarz]

3. Gay Marriages-

What is all this excitement about? I had no idea that so many people were interested in other peoples business. Gay, or straight, people have a right to their own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with someone elses life. Shame on all these busy-bodies that have nothing else to do but butt into other peoples business.

[ThomCat]

4. "Activist Judge"

is just a way of criticising any judge who makes a decision someone doesn't like. It doesn't look like it really means much in and of itself.

If the right wing really wants to criticise activist judges, let them look back to the fools who decided that corporations are somehow legal persons. Now that was a foolish bit of activism from the judges.

[noiretextatique]

5. YES eom

[Dookus]

7. Yes they would

in fact, they would violate every judicial tenet involved.

No part of the constitution can be unconstitutional.

[cheezus]

8. I'm pretty sure that part of the constitution can't be unconstitutional