We always hear outrage over "judicial activism." We are told that judicial activism is wrong... for some reason. Oddly (or not?) the only time we hear complaints about judicial activism are when minority rights are vindicated. If a judge finds that gays have a right to marry, people don't even need to read the opinion before declaring it activism.
If you really want judicial activism, go spend a day in Family Court. There, you'll see that Jim Crow lives on - if you're a man who wants custody of his child, or if you think it's only fair that your ex-wife should work for a living. You will see enough equal-protection violations to last a lifetime.
Here is what happened to one man:
Former New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan on Tuesday won his appeal from an $18,000-a-month child support obligation imposed in his 2006 divorce, which a New Jersey appellate court found both exorbitant and unfairly apportioned against him.
The court, in Strahan v. Strahan, A-3747-06, said that the trial judge failed to make the specific findings of fact necessary to sustain his decision to add $200,000 a year to the $35,984 annual award that the couple's twins girls are due under statutory guidelines.
The court also found error in the trial judge's saddling of Strahan with 91 percent of the child support obligation, especially since the judge did not impute any income to Strahan's former wife, Jean, even though she is college-educated and capable of working but has voluntarily chosen not to do so.
Now that's judicial activism. And it's very, very, very common. If you're a man, family law is more unfair than criminal law is to defendants.
By the way, if you're a man who has "voluntarily chosen" to not work, you will go to jail for failure to meet your child-support obligations. How is the mistreatment of men constitutional? It's not, but no one seems to care.
Why not? Isn't judicial activism, well, judicial activism?