By appointed judges. Yet I daresay most of us agree that the world is better because of it.
"The people" were not happy about that at the time, either. Yet I believe that few here would condemn "activist judges" for declaring that unequal protection under the law was unconstitutional, even though 20 states had duly passed laws to support racial segregation.
Judges are appointed in order to correct the will of the people when the people are made complacent by habit or made blind by prejudice. Their whole existence is wrapped up in interpreting the highest law of the land, not rubberstamping whatever the majority says it wants.
Yesterday the issue was unequal treatment because of race. Today is not so different: if we prick them, do they not bleed?
Current Events » in reply to Nor did it before the will of the people was overturned by appointed judges.
"Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" overturned the will of the people, too.
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Judge rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
- Why should homosexuals not suffer along with the rest of us?
- Why the hell does the concept of gay marriage scare people?
- Judge tosses out legitimate law to favor narrow special interest group.
- Note to Religious Right nutcases opposing gay marriage
- Nor did it before the will of the people was overturned by appointed judges. (n/t)
- re: Note to those who gleefully override laws with legal rulings:
