Why is Hollingsworth v. Perry considered Judicial Activism?
Please, I need help. I know what the case is and I also know what Judicial Activism is. I just need help.
Most laws forbade same sex marriages. For this California court to proclaim that they were legal was going out on a limb. It was obviously judicial activism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry is considered an example of judicial activism because the Supreme Court's decision in this case went beyond simply interpreting and applying the existing law. Judicial activism refers to instances where judges actively shape and make policy decisions instead of deferring to the elected branches of government.
To understand why Hollingsworth v. Perry is considered judicial activism, let me explain the background and ruling of the case. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. This effectively banned same-sex marriage in California.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, also known as the Prop 8 case, arose when two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 2013.
Rather than ruling on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling. The Court decided that the party defending Proposition 8, as private citizens, lacked standing to appeal the lower court's decision that struck down the measure. As a result, the Supreme Court's decision did not directly address the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.
The reason Hollingsworth v. Perry is considered judicial activism is because the Court's decision effectively allowed same-sex marriage to resume in California without definitively addressing the broader issue. By taking this route, the Supreme Court avoided making a definitive ruling on whether same-sex marriage bans violate the Constitution.
Critics argue that the Court's approach in this case was activist because it allowed the lower court's ruling to stand, effectively changing the law in California without a clear constitutional basis. Supporters of the decision, on the other hand, applaud the Court's use of judicial restraint, as the ruling focused on a procedural issue rather than issuing a sweeping decision on the broader constitutional question.
It's important to note that whether a court's decision is considered judicial activism or judicial restraint can be subjective, and there are often diverging opinions on how a particular case should be categorized. Understanding the context and reasoning behind a court's decision is crucial in determining whether it aligns with judicial activism or restraint.