In search of judicial activism in the same-sex marriage cases: Sorting the evidence from courts, legislatures, initiatives and amendments

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, activist judges were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as activist on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-126
Number of pages16
JournalPerspectives on Politics
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

amendment
popular initiative
president
marriage
constitutional amendment
evidence
political system
opposition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

@article{001e14bcf544411f8021f0bfa7896507,
title = "In search of judicial activism in the same-sex marriage cases: Sorting the evidence from courts, legislatures, initiatives and amendments",
abstract = "In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, activist judges were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as activist on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.",
author = "Scott Barclay",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S1537592709992696",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "111--126",
journal = "Perspectives on Politics",
issn = "1537-5927",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In search of judicial activism in the same-sex marriage cases

T2 - Sorting the evidence from courts, legislatures, initiatives and amendments

AU - Barclay, Scott

PY - 2010/3/1

Y1 - 2010/3/1

N2 - In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, activist judges were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as activist on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.

AB - In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, activist judges were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as activist on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77951438717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77951438717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S1537592709992696

DO - 10.1017/S1537592709992696

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77951438717

VL - 8

SP - 111

EP - 126

JO - Perspectives on Politics

JF - Perspectives on Politics

SN - 1537-5927

IS - 1

ER -