Is it About Time?

Yesterday, something truly remarkable and unexpected happened. The California state Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. If you can recall, in 2000 California voters voted in favor of Proposition 22 which forbid same-sex marriage in favor of heterosexual couples only. Supporters of gay rights and gay marriage have long waited and fought for the legislators, federal and state judiciaries to rule on their behalf and grant them the equality to which they constitutionally lay claim. Opponents to the May 15, 2008 ruling are contending that the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and is walking in judicial activist territory. Is this contention accurate? If so, is it all bad? Supporters of the ruling believe that their civil liberties were at stake and that since it is the Court's duty to measure legislature and activities against the U.S. Constitution an appropriate and just ruling was made.

Judicial activism occurs when the judiciary ruling "departs from established precedent" or "legislative intent" in order to "protect or expand individual rights". This sort of activism can be manifested through the "overturning of legislation (for example Proposition 22), ruling against judicial precedent...or nullifying legislation or state constitutional amendments."

There are several other famous Supreme Court cases that have us questioning whether or not the Court was playing the activist role when making their rulings. A case that stands out as likely ruled on because of judicial activism is Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown case of 1954 overruled that the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case which allowed schools to be segregated. In that 1896 court, the Supreme Court justices held that "separate, but equal" was acceptable. In Brown, the Court supported the overturn of legislated school segregation by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.