Exhibit A: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius
Exhibit B: Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Which of these rulings is the result of a co-called “activist judge?”
I happen to think neither, but there are plenty who disagree.
We have gotten to the point where any decision with which we disagree had to be handed down by an activist judge. This is despite the fact that judges are steeped in the rule of law. This is despite the fact that ours is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
To declare a judge an “activist” who issues a ruling based on our constitution simply because you don’t like it is to dismiss our 200+ year history, not to mention disrespect those who protect our liberty.
It’s just not right.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
My two cents:
The Commonwealth v. Sebelius ruling basically determined that VA has the right to bring its lawsuit. None of the questions the suit raises were answered.
The Perry v. Schwarzenegger seems to me (and I’m not a lawyer) to contradict the part of DOMA that wasn’t struck down (that says the state doesn’t have to recognize a gay marriage from another state if they choose not to).
I think it’s activist (and we’ll disagree on that)…but at its most basic, it’s concerning
I linked the rulings for a reason. Where in the Perry ruling does it refer to DOMA or the part of it that relates to the cross-border recognition? If it’s there, I missed it.
I’ve read them both. The DOMA case isn’t mentioned in Perry.
But don’t you think it’s a little odd that the government can say in one breath that no state has to recognize a marriage that violates its laws…but then can say that if you DON’T recognize it, it’s not equal protection?
There were two rulings by Judge Tauro related to DOMA. My understanding was that the Gill decision was similar to this decision on Prop 8. The other decision Mass. v. DHHS was based on the section violating the 10th amendment.
In both cases, at issue, was section 3 of DOMA. The issue was not that these couples (in Gill) had gone to another state and that state didn’t recognize their marriage license. It was that the federal government wasn’t recognizing their marriage. The Mass case was around federally funded programs in Mass. So, why would a section unrelated to that come up?
Also, I don’t see any conflict between the rulings. If equal protection denies California and the federal government the ability to discriminate on the basis of your partner’s gender, then it does so for all political jurisdictions of the US. The point about full faith and credit is moot.
No, not odd at all. Although a federal judge ruled in the Perry case, the ruling – if upheld – applies to California, not the US. So nothing is being said about states recognizing marriages from other states.
Now if this were a direct challenge to DOMA, I might agree with you. But it isn’t.
I think that we’ve defined down judicial activism. It used to take a case like Griswold to qualify. Now, as Vivian says, overturning a law that whomever likes, seems to be enough.