Abstract
In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, “activist judges” were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as “activist” on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations
Reference74 articles.
1. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309 (2003)
2. Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas
3. Hernandez v Robles 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (2005b)
4. Varnum v. Brien 2009 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 31 (2009)
5. Storrs v. Holcomb 245 A.D.2d 943 (1997)
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献