Log in

No account? Create an account
08 October 2014 @ 08:36 am
In the 50s we needed an undemocratic, activist judiciary to end segregation.

In the 60s we needed an undemocratic, activist judiciary to permit interracial marriage.

In the 70s we needed an undemocratic, activist judiciary to say that women own their own bodies.

These eminently reasonable decisions caused so much popular rage that now the Court is hoping that the rest of us can do marriage equality with less help from them than usual.
A Wandering Hobbitredbird on October 8th, 2014 03:01 pm (UTC)
Given that the usual suspects are screaming about "judicial activism" in response to the Court doing nothing on Monday, it may not matter.

I just hope, 40 years from now, that we aren't doing as badly with marriage equality as we are with segregation and reproductive freedom.
Greetings Fellow Comstoks!fengi on October 8th, 2014 03:02 pm (UTC)
Plus the undemocratic, activist judiciary is too busy incorporating church and state, giving corporations more civil rights than humans and reinstating Jim Crow and bought elections. No time for gay marriage.
amaebi: Black foxamaebi on October 9th, 2014 11:23 am (UTC)
I'm not sure what a democratic judiciary would be. Poll-taker legal administrators?