woodie144 Wrote:
Apr 05, 2012 9:39 AM
Activism can be defined as any ruling which goes against the constitution, or founders intent. Since in Roe v Wade, they court read an intent into the constitution which was not there, and to which the founders never, in their wildest dreams, being moral people, would ever have fought, or died to foster, it is judicial activism. Massachusetts court similarly engaged in judicial activism when it legislated from the bench that gays must be allowed to marry by the state. Further, judicial activism can determine that no one has right to any property if another can benefit the state to a greater extent than the current owner (Kelo decison). Threw personal property rights out the window with that one.