Understanding Judicial Activism

The Supreme Court decision is unadulterated judicial activism. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “Today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to. . . . Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences” in other rightly condemned activist decisions. This is the kind of thing that seems all to prevalent with regards to American politics today.
Unfortunately for us in the here and now — is that we have various politicians — including the President as well as the former Secretary of State, insofar as leaders within business (i.e., Micro Soft and the entirety of social media lead of course by Face Book.)

Nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage in all 50 states, and five unelected justices do not have the authority to redefine marriage everywhere. Still, the question now is: What do we do?

I suggest that pro-marriage citizens should follow the example of pro-life citizens.

In January 1973, the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers were told they had lost, that the issue was settled. The law taught citizens that they had a new right, and public opinion quickly swung against pro-lifers by as much as a two-to-one margin. It is hoped that people will begin to see how important public opinion is to any methodology.

geraldoPundits insisted that all young people were for abortion, and elites ridiculed pro-lifers for being on the “wrong side of history.” Although this clearly was not the status quo; yet, several pundits did indeed make careers out of making people believe in the other side of history, isn’t that correct Mr. Rivera, Jane Fonda, just to name a few.

But pro-lifers put their hand to the plow, and today we reap the fruits. My generation is more pro-life than my parents’. A majority of Americans now support pro-life policies. In the last decade, states have enacted more laws protecting unborn babies than were passed in the previous 30 years.

The pro-life community stood up and responded to a bad court ruling. Academics wrote books and articles making the scientific and philosophical case for life. Statesmen like Henry Hyde, Edwin Meese, and Ronald Reagan used the bully pulpit to advance the culture of life. Activists and lawyers got together, formed coalitions, and devised effective strategies.

Now everything the pro-life movement did needs to be done again on this new frontier of 41Z9337g1rL__SX322_BO1,204,203,200_marriage. Here are three critical steps to take.

First, we must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges what it is: judicial activism. Just as the pro-life movement successfully rejected Roe v. Wade and exposed its lies about unborn life and about the Constitution, we must make it clear to our fellow citizens that Obergefell v. Hodges does not tell the truth about marriage or about our Constitution.

Second, we must protect our freedom to speak and live according to our beliefs. The pro-life movement accomplished this by ensuring that pro-life doctors and nurses would never have to perform abortions. It won the battle to prevent taxpayer money from paying for abortions. And it made sure that pro-lifers and pro-life organizations could not be discriminated against by the government.

Pro-marriage forces need to do the same: Ensure that we have freedom from government coercion to lead our lives, rear our children, and operate our businesses and our charities in accord with our beliefs about marriage. Likewise, we must ensure that the government does not discriminate against citizens or organizations because of their belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

Third, we must redouble our efforts to make the case for marriage in the public square. To do this, we must use reason and our own personal stories. This is the most compelling way to bring the truth about marriage to light.

story end 30

About J.Paul

Academia, Constitution, Musicianship, all around Caucasian male, straight, and professes Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life. Guitars -- Classical, Acoustic, A/E, Strat, a real bassist at heart, Les Paul Standard bass.
This entry was posted in U.S. Supreme Court, Usurpation and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.