As we know about the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court is made up of nine justices, coming from varied religious and ethnic backgrounds with six males and three females. Presidents nominate Justices for life tenure and they must be confirmed by majority vote of the Senate. According to NY Times article that has the title” Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide”, on June 27th, the US Supreme Court decided 5-4 that same-sex couples have a ‘fundamental’ right to marry, and thus overturned the laws of at least 17 states. In this assignment, I will discuss the arguments both for and against judicial activism vs. judicial restraint, using the 2015 gay marriage case of OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT
…show more content…
v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL, the Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to legalize gay marriage throughout the nation. After they made a consideration, five Justices short-circuited the democratic process, which was steadily removing barriers to gays, and cleared aside the Constitution’s reservation of family-law matters to the states. In fact, they were examples of judicial restraint since they deferred to the determinations of other branches of government. But is OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL an example of judicial activism? I can say “yes”, if by the definition of “judicial activism” we mean remarkable down regulations that a majority of the judges understand as controlling inappropriately of the Constitution. Furthermore, Obergefell v. Hodges is a merging of six lawsuits from four states: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. This is a serious case about same-sex marriage. All four states are covered by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the states ' gay marriage bans in Nov. 2014, thus ending a run of success for the gay marriage movement during which more than 40 state and federal courts overturned same-sex marriage bans. The resulting judicial conflict prompted the US Supreme Court to hear the
v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL, the Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to legalize gay marriage throughout the nation. After they made a consideration, five Justices short-circuited the democratic process, which was steadily removing barriers to gays, and cleared aside the Constitution’s reservation of family-law matters to the states. In fact, they were examples of judicial restraint since they deferred to the determinations of other branches of government. But is OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL an example of judicial activism? I can say “yes”, if by the definition of “judicial activism” we mean remarkable down regulations that a majority of the judges understand as controlling inappropriately of the Constitution. Furthermore, Obergefell v. Hodges is a merging of six lawsuits from four states: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. This is a serious case about same-sex marriage. All four states are covered by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the states ' gay marriage bans in Nov. 2014, thus ending a run of success for the gay marriage movement during which more than 40 state and federal courts overturned same-sex marriage bans. The resulting judicial conflict prompted the US Supreme Court to hear the