The Supreme Court: Part 4

Judicial activism: A popular buzz word in Republican circles. A judicial expectation in Democratic circles.

At its heart, this idea revolves around the courts acting as legislatures. Generally, in our constitutional democratic republic, our elected officials create laws. The judiciary then rules whether these laws are constitutional or not. This idea is pretty standard in America, established by John Marshall 200 years ago.

However, Democrats have a different idea for the Supreme Court. They prefer for the court to make decisions FOR THEM, because those decisions are either unpopular, or not politically convenient. This is judicial activism.

For example, if I’m a Democrat in Congress, I really don’t want to announce support for gay marriage right now, because I would probably lose my reelection bid. (Both Obama and Biden are doing this right now, actually. Of course, as I said in my last post, they’re either lying or hypocritical) So, as a Democrat in Congress, since I can’t just create a bill, sponsor it, and bring it to a vote, (because I’m frightened of my constituents, and I don't understand how the constitution works) I will simply wait for the Supreme Court to create gay marriage in America for me. Then, I don’t have to make the tough decisions, and I can say something like, “I do NOT support the court’s decision…but I will honor it.”

Judicial activism is generally not a good thing. And you better believe that Barack Obama is absolutely itching to appoint judicial activists to the court system across the country.