Newt Weighs In

So when I was pulling the Vote Yes on Prop 8 commercial off youtube yesterday, I stumbled upon an ad in which Newt Gingrich weighs in on the legal angle of the Proposition 8 debate. While I might not support Proposition 8 myself, Gingrich does present an interesting point about the role of judges in legislative matters. Should "appointed lawyers" engage in legal activism? Should judges be legislating from the bench? Should 4 judges be able to overturn the will of the majority?





I would argue that one of the judicial branch's major obligations is to weigh in upon this type of issue. The role of the judicial branch -is- to protect against majority tyranny. If it were not for this major check on majority opinion, how would the rights of -any- minority be protected? The judges interpreted the California Constitution to mean equal rights for all of the state's citizens, not just those who have legislative power/money. In addition, the California Constitution is above any other California law, and laws made in opposition to it -must- be overturned. If we were to state that judges should not review laws, and should not take an activist stance, then what is the purpose of having the California Constitution as the supreme law of the state in the first place? It becomes toothless and devoid of meaning.

In a nutshell, legal activism is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government. The California Supreme Court's decision earlier this year is simply an example of the Framer's vision of government at work.