Depends on the decision and who is rallying
I rallied behind the judges who said prohibition of gay marriage was
unconstitutional.  But many did not, and urged the legislatures to neuter the
judicial branch in order to prevent such "travesties".
I rallied against the members (various) of the mayors office and the licensing
offices who handed out gay marriage certificates after the California
legislature deemed it illegal.  But many thought they did the rite thing.

Your view of judicial activism may be tainted with negative connotations or
with feelings of positive change.  For example, I consider my self a
conservative Republican, but I can not stand out current trend towards
religious persecution and social ternary.  

I picked those examples because they fit on either sides of popular opinion
for a controversial topic.  But the form and function are important, and how
they effect precedent either as extensions of current precedent, or as
creation of new precedent.  In other words, the system created is more
important then the individual prohibition.  But that's another topic


What was I rambling about again?  I got distracted by some blinking lights ;)


On Fri, 6 May 2005 FoulDragon@aol.com wrote:

> I thought it made for a funny title.  We see it as a loaded term lately, 
> meaning judges who rewrite the rules as they see fit, generally to the disgust of 
> the masses.  For once, a juge writing rules we can all rally around.
> 

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss