"Activist" Judges

We've been hearing a lot about "activist judges" in the past few years, and the term grates on my nerves every single time I hear it.  To me, an "activist judge" is a judge who makes a decision you personally disagree with.  Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that there aren't judges out there who have less than stellar motives.  We recently had a judge running for office in my area who wanted to implement a Christian world view via the judiciary, and he wasn't even shy about openly telling people this (which is hopefully why he wasn't elected).

But I'm seriously starting to wonder if people even realize what the judicial system is there for.  Since they don't teach much civics in school anymore, it's really no surprise that people are uneducated about what judges are supposed to do, which really leaves our country in a sad state of affairs.

So, if you're one of the confused multitudes, I'll break it down for you.  Judges are essentially there to interpret the law and pass judgement within the scope of our Constitution and set of laws.  But one very overlooked job of a judge is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Despite what some may think, we do not live in a country where the majority rules.  We live in a democracy where we are given certain fundamental rights by our Constitution.  So yes, on many issues, including who we elect to office, the majority rules.  But on other issues, such as civil rights, it's up to judges to make sure that people's rights are protected, even if those rights are not popular at the time.

For example, gay people should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us under our Constitution.  However, these days that seems to be an unpopular point of view, especially among the Christian majority in this country.  So what it supposed to happen is that the judiciary protects the rights of an unpopular minority against the will of the majority who may not want rights afforded to a certain group of people.  Unfortunately, even our legislators seem to have lost sight of that fact and are putting people's fundamental rights up to a popular vote.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we had allowed people to vote on the civil rights of African-Americans, especially in the Deep South?  We'd probably still have segregation laws to this day.  Black people deserve to have all the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of the U.S., simply because they are human and they live here, no matter how unpopular or small in number they may be.  It doesn't matter what the white majority says, because it's not up to them to give or take away rights; it's up to the Constitution and the judiciary which protects the rights given by the Constitution.

Why can't people take this same logic and apply it to the issue of gay marriage?  It doesn't matter whether you are for or against it.  That's not the point.  The point is that it's not up to you or me to give or take away people's rights.  So the next time you hear about someone railing on about an "activist judge," consider that maybe the reason that judge is hated is that they were just doing their job properly.