If there's one thing I can't stand from the court system, it's judicial activism, no matter what side it's from. I have no problem voting for a Democratic judge if they practice judicial restraint. (In fact, I did in this past election.)
However, this comes in the wake of the Utah court decision that legalize gay marriage. Judge Robert J. Shelby used his position on the bench to override the will of the people so that his opinion was enacted throughout society. The people of Utah had defined the definition of marriage between one man and one woman in their state constitution and had affirmed that with an overwhelming 65.9% to 34.1% vote.
Please tell me, what is the point of asking people their opinions if they don't matter anyways? If judges are just going to step in and administer judicial activism, what is the point? Might as well save our breath.
The job of a judge is to interpret the Constitution for what it means, not add your own meaning to the words. You are supposed to look at the Constitution with a straight and narrow interpretation and go on what is exactly on the piece of paper in front of you.
But then again, these are loose interpreters of the Constitution who believe it is a "living and breathing document." I don't think that's what the founders intended. I believe the Founding Fathers, or state constitution writers, intended their words to mean their words, not what some judge 200-some years later wants them to mean.
Now you probably think that I won't accept any changes. I will, but those changes need to be the will of the people, not some judge sitting in some office with a pen and an ideological mindset.
And this doesn't just go for the Left; it goes for the Right too. However, I just tend to notice a lot more judicial activism from the Left. The most obvious example ever being Roe v. Wade, in which the Warren Court overturned practically every state's laws on abortion in the entire United States. Most of the precedents Roe v. Wade was founded upon have been struck down as extremely wrong, and the Pro-Choice side has had to completely change their argument, as shown through Panned Parenthood v. Casey.
But still this is judicial activism at its finest like the Utah gay marriage case. The NARAL Pro-Choice America claims that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, nineteen states would immediately outlaw abortion, and nineteen more would probably follow suit. Yet, there's no point in even letting the people decide this one because liberal judicial activism will continue to fight for abortions.
I think Ann Coulter put it best when she said:
Only when at least five members of the Supreme Court stop pretending to see a secret, hidden clause in the Constitution, discernible only to the members of the ACLU, and repeal Roe can Americans finally vote on abortion. This is a right we have been denied for thirty-two years... Abortion- like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage, and removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance- is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.
On a side note: I don't think people leaving anonymous responses that call me "oblivious," a "fool," "ignorant," "rude," or any other name can understand that these responses only have the opposite effect of what you wish to intend. If I am upsetting people on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I must be doing something right. As one of my favorite Ann Coulter lines states:
If the liberal you're arguing with doesn't become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you're not doing it right.
Additionally, if a professor found my blog and showed it in class just to demonize my positions, it shows how sad your professor must be to find such an unread blog. And I highly doubt "everyone at your campus thinks it's hilarious!" unless you are homeschooled. I've only had 4,382 views to date. Mustn't be that great of a school then, or you are making false statements.
Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm still going to exercise my First Amendment rights exactly like Phil Robertson. The only reason people post those sorts of comments is to try to stop the voice on the other side of the political spectrum. I believe the only correct thing that should be done is to continue to express my beliefs. You'd have to throw me in jail before I stop expressing my opinions. (And even there, I'd probably drive a few people crazy.)
And just so the haters can know, all the claims I disputed from the Left over Phil Robertson appeared in my news feed on social media sites numerous times yesterday. I'm not making up generalizations. They are real comments from your side.