Dear Mr. Dr. J,
Thanks for your great medical commentary! I like that you keep us all up to date on those sorts of things. I had only one small point to make about your post- one would think the liberals in California would be used to judicial activism, and would applaud it (although this wasn't really activism, it sure looks like it). Have a great day!
Operative J S
Thank you and God bless you too JS!
JS brings up an interesting point.
The progressive's definition of judicial activism is any verdict that the progressive dislikes. A conservative's definition is any decision that isn't based on the laws on the books, and ultimately the constitution. For example, when Justice Brennan was talking about 'penumbras' and 'emanations' that's judicial activism. When the NJ Supreme Court permitted Sen. Torricelli be replaced by Sen. Lautenberg on the 2002 ballot in direct conflict with NJ state laws because (paraphrasing) an election just ain't an election without a Democrat on the ballot, that's definitely judicial activism. Kelo vs. New London, that's judicial activism.
In this case, San Francisco put a measure on the ballot that trumped the state's authority and also infringed on freedom of religion. It's pretty clear cut on two counts why the ballot measure could not stand.