Judging the judges

In "Judging the judges," Dave Denison examines the charge of "judicial activism." Where should the line between legitimate and illegitimate judicial actions be drawn? In finding in favor of same-sex marriage, did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court extend and improve the constitution, or distort and disregard it?
Read the story: Judging the judges
Share your thoughts

Page 1

Judicial activism is a blight on our lives. When laws are specific, and written, they transcend the comings & goings of people in government. Hence "a government of laws and not of men (sic)." But when judges usurp power as they have in this instance, it negates democracy. Let the people speak, come what may.

Mike C., Marblehead

THE SJC AND ITS RULING ARE A FARSE. THIS IS NOT ACTIVISM, IT IS STATE DRIVEN POWER RUN AMOK. THE PEOPLE CLEARLY DO NOT WANT THIS, BUT 4 PEOPLE HAD TO GET THEIR WAY. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS NOT ASSIGNED LEGISLATIVE POWERS. THEY VIOLATED THE MASS CONSTITUTION WITH ITS CONTROVERSIAL AND ILLEGAL RULING.

Lou , Wenham, MA

They distorted it. The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong. Children need this protection. The SJC did a disservice to children with their decision. The best interest of children should be kept in mind when government makes decisions. Their decision also has adverse financial consequences. For example, same-sex couples would be entitled to health insurance if one person was a state employee. It's just too expensive. Aren't things expensive enough, if not too expensive? We keep losing clout in Washington every 10 years because of the cost of living. We'll lose another seat next time if this stands.

Peter, Cambridge

Is is the duty of every American to pass onto future generations a nation in which freedom has been both expanded and perfected to a higher degree then we recieved it. One generation expanded freedom to slaves, another generation gave sufferage to women, and another generation expanded rights to racial miniorities. It is now time for this generation to expand freedom to gays and lesbians, and many who's vision is clouded by faith or bias are not ready to carry on the work left to them our shared history. Let me be frank for a moment. I am the product of my times and I am not 100% comfortable with homosexuality. Still, the comfort level of an individual, or a commonwealth, is not the standard by which we judge citizens worthy of rights of citizenship. If the Church, or any church, is uncomfortable with homosexual marriage they have the right to refuse to administer the right of marriage. Individuals are free to reject the practice as well. However, as a state and a nation who's basic tenets are freedom of the individual and equal protection under the law, we must allow gays to marry if for no other reason than our history demands it.

Lorne, Lincoln

Regardless of the politics for the SJC to "order" action from the legislation usurps the constiitution. It would be the equivalent of the legislature ordering the SJC to find a specific way on a case. This is what happens when political hacks run the court systems.

tj, littleton

I support gay marriage but I am extremely opposed to judges making up laws. It's the judicial's job to interpret laws, not create them. I hope that gay marriage becomes legal, but let it be done through the legislature. Judges these days are getting out of control, and I hope to see more public oversight of the particularly bad ones. For gay marriage, against overreaching, egotistical judges.

Steve, Boston

If you dont think there is any problem with judges creating laws like this, go check out www.overlawyered.com. it is one of the most depressing websites ever, and it's clear that our judicial system has been slowly breaking down over the years. We used to only have to worry about lawyers, but now we have to also look out for judges who dont know their roles. Making new laws is not their job, and I applaud any politician who calls them out on it and refuses to adhere to the judges' decrees.

Calvin, Boston

They should be impeached or fired, whatever it takes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John , Ludlow

I find that there is no clear line to be drawn between legitimate and illegitimate actions. What is legitimate is the fact that this is a free country and if the president wants to excercise his right to change the constitution then so be it. If people cant get over the fact that gay people are actively part of our society and that they should be granted the same rights as straight people then we might as well have a constitutional ban on blacks marrying whites. There is absolutely no rational basis for why gays cannot be allowed to marry. Raising kids under gay parents is not a rational argument against gay marriage. This issue is getting dumber by the minute. Why doesn't this article say anything about religion? That is the root of this issue. Fundamentalist christians are the ones that are treating the constitution as if it were a testament from the bible.

Phil, Stoneham