In a democracy such as ours, the judicial branch is uniquely charged with protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This, it seems to me, is at the heart of both same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court. In the Prop 8 case, the justices are weighing whether 51 percent of California’s voters (note, it is NOT 51 percent of California’s population) can reverse a right bestowed upon a minority. In the DOMA case, the justices are weighing whether the legislative branch can pass a federal law that refuses to recognize the legitimate laws in a handful of states. In both instances, a minority is in need of intervention by an independent arbiter (the judicial branch) to protect it from the majority. If this is judicial activism, then it is as it was envisioned to be.
Tyranny of the Majority
Published by jongarinn
Jon is a an award-winning editor and writer with more than 20 years of experience in communications, marketing, and public relations. He holds a master’s degree in journalism from the University of North Texas and works as a communications coordinator for a major academic medical center. View all posts by jongarinn