Host - your point is one that I have returned to many times in my own thoughts. Unless my understanding of the Constitution is incorrect, our laws are not made and validated by simple "majority rules". In fact, simple majority referendum is actually an unsophisticated and weak argument in favor of a law. It is the responsibility of the government to protect the minority from the majority - which would mean that (barring an amendment to the Constitution itself) any law passed, even by majority vote is quite appropriately subject to judicial review. This was the whole point of an independent judiciary, right? An amendment to the Constitution would of course change the ground for judicial review, but would also represent a change in the basic ground our country stands upon - and this change would sadden me immensely.
One other question - and please do inform me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the term "judicial activism" is nothing more than a pejorative way of stating something obvious. A court that rules on cases is simply doing its job, which is to interpret laws, and their legality, correct? I've never quite understood how a court that can't solicit cases and passes judgment can be said to be "activist".
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|