# Judicial activism is a good thing, unless you disagree! And how long have we had it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565 "2004-11-18T23:14:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/201 "2004-11-26T11:31:44Z")
I asked **Blaron** : > [@Bricker](#): > > From this response, I assume you now understand and acknowledge the different standards used for measuring an Equal Protection claim, and you are now arguing that a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage does not survive even the rational basis test. > > Is that understanding correct? **Blaron** replied: > [@Blalron](#): > > “\*f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). > > The “protection of marriage” amendments were enacted purely out of animosity towards a particular group (homosexuals). This group is politically unpopular. > This is an impermisable justification under the Equal Protection Clause. It’s unclear to me where you have answered my question. I asked if you now understand and acknowledge the different standards used for measuring an Equal Protection claim, and you are now arguing that a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage does not survive even the rational basis test. You replied that the justification used to create the laws is impermissible, which didn’t answer my question. AGAIN: do you now understand and acknowledge the different standards used for measuring an Equal Protection claim? Are you now arguing that a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage does not survive even the rational basis test? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/202 "2004-11-26T12:47:34Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > If we’re going to have a rational basis test, we should be able to apply it. Your conception of it would be more aptly named a “batshit insane” test. As I understand the explanation, the rational basis test does not demand that one agree that the law’s application will produce the greatest overall benefit, or that it produces no harmful effect upon anyone, or that it satisfies some sort of “fairness” test. It could well be called the “batshit insane” test if this in fact were the expectation and anti-SSM marriage laws somehow passed the test. But that’s not the hurdle. The law merely expects that the law can reasonably be expected to produce some societal benefit, that the rationale for the law is logical only to this extent. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/203 "2004-11-26T15:20:22Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Your conception of it would be more aptly named a “batshit insane” test. If the Supreme Court adhered to truth-in-advertising when naming their jurisprudential tests, “batshit insane analysis” would in fact be an apt moniker for rational basis review. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Rational basis is a low, low threshhold. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/204 "2004-11-26T15:24:49Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Except for one problem. Feel free to cite the state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage for the states prior to say 1980 or so. So pre-1980 or so, do you really believe two gay persons would have been allowed to marry had they sued on the lack of specificity in the marriage statute? Give me a break. Longstanding tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word, and it does no damage to strict constructionism to note that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/205 "2004-11-26T15:34:54Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Social policy is not a valid basis for constitutional law. Rights and powers are. But it is a valid basis for meeting the requirements of rational basis inquiry. And that isn’t just my opinion – that’s what the cases actually say. Further, I think your “social policy vs. rights and powers” analysis is just sophistry. The reach and limits of all constitutional rights are pretty much matters of social policy. You have a right to free speech, but not to commit slander or to falsely advertise. Why? Social policy reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/206 "2004-11-26T16:28:11Z")
“If a legislative classification or distinction neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold it so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” _Vacco v. Quill_, 521 U.S. 799 . Such “rational-basis” testing acknowledges that there is no “license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” _FCC v. Beach Communications_, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). “When social or economic legislation is at issue, the Equal Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). “A legislature need not articulate its rationale, and a State need not produce evidence to sustain the classification’s rationality. Moreover, courts are compelled to accept a legislature’s generalization even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends.” _Heller v. Doe_, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). > [@Blaron](#): > > The “protection of marriage” amendments were enacted purely out of animosity towards a particular group (homosexuals). This group is politically unpopular. This is an impermisable justification under the Equal Protection Clause. No. Opposition to an _act_ is not the same as opposition to the _actor_. See _Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Center_, 506 U.S. 263, 270 (1993). If it were not so, then the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 249, would be unconstitutional on grounds of animus toward pro-life persons. Hate crimes laws would be unconstitutional, since they derive from an animus towards the class of persons harboring certain politically disfavored prejudices, and treat members of that class differently than others who commit the exact same criminal act. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/207 "2004-11-26T16:57:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “If a legislative classification or distinction neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold it so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” _Vacco v. Quill_, 521 U.S. 799 . The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. _Loving v Virginia_ 388 US 1 (1967) > [@](#): > > “A legislature need not articulate its rationale, and a State need not produce evidence to sustain the classification’s rationality. Moreover, courts are compelled to accept a legislature’s generalization even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends.” _Heller v. Doe_, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). As I’ve said before this disturbs me. Our Consitution grants certain powers _to_ government, powers it doesn’t otherwise have. It utilize those powers, it should **always** have to justify it’s actions when challenged. That, IMHO, is a poor decision. Of course _Romer_, which is more recent, suggests “rational” may actually come to mean rational rather than any old thing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/208 "2004-11-26T17:12:27Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > As I’ve said before this disturbs me. Our Consitution grants certain powers _to_ government, powers it doesn’t otherwise have. It utilize those powers, it should **always** have to justify it’s actions when challenged. That, IMHO, is a poor decision. Of course _Romer_, which is more recent, suggests “rational” may actually come to mean rational rather than any old thing at all. And as I think has been mentioned before, your concern is valid at a federal level, but not at the state level. The federal government is as you describe: with certain powers granted to it. It must be able to point to the specific grant of power every time it enacts a law. The states are different. They have a general police power, without any particular source of powers being granted, and they do not have to identify their actions. It is the states’ power commented upon above. > [@Homebrew](#): > > The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. > > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Loving v Virginia 388 US 1 (1967) I have been holding off on walking down this road with you because I wanted to cement a conclusion to the Rational Basis discussion first. In my view, it’s very confusing for readers to try to follow an argument that skips merrily about different standards of review from one post to the next. So, before we explore your contention that same-sex marriage should be analyzed under a heightened standard of review, I would like to get all participants to closure on the Rational Basis standard. In light of what’s been posted on how the Rational Basis standard is applied, does anyone have any remaining argument that a ban on same-sex marriage would NOT survive a Rational Basis standard of review? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/209 "2004-11-26T18:11:16Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > “No secular, non-religious purpose” is necessarily the same as “serving a religious purpose.” Thus, every law that failed prong 1 would _necessarily_ fail prong 2 – if you are correct in thinking that “advancing a religious purpose” equates with “excessive entanglement.” > > Thus, prong 1 and prong 2 are identical. > > Thus, there is only one prong. Well, yes, if an Act fails the first test, it will most likely also fail the third. But it’s not hard to imagine an Act that will pass the first but fail the excessive entanglement test. For instance I think Bush’s attempts to more fully utilize religious organizations to provide social services could be such a situation. Providing homeless shelters meets secular and religious goals. Federal funding for a religious shelter that _requires_ participation in religious functions could run afoul of excessive entanglement proscriptions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/210 "2004-11-26T18:33:11Z")
Also for the same reasons described in post #208 above, I’d like to hold off on the First Amendment issue until we have finished the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/211 "2004-11-26T19:37:43Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > So pre-1980 or so, do you really believe two gay persons would have been allowed to marry had they sued on the lack of specificity in the marriage statute? Give me a break. Longstanding tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word, and it does no damage to strict constructionism to note that fact. Actually yes, I think there would have been cases where two gay persons attempting to get married would have indeed won, had they even had to sue. I’m not sure why they would have had to sue in the first place, since there was nothing in the lawbooks to prevent them from marrying in the first place. Back in those days, a LOT fewer folks came out of the closest about their sexual orientation, due to fear, not due to laws, which is probably why it was not tested. If longstanding tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word, why the rush to actually run out and write the words? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/212 "2004-11-26T19:40:02Z")
Heck, for that matter cite that “Longstanding tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/213 "2004-11-26T20:28:31Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Heck, for that matter cite that “Longstanding tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word.” As a matter of good faith, I don’t think debaters should not demand a cite for something they themselves acknowledge. Assuming you’re asking this in good faith, no offense intended but I’m a bit surprised that you’re unaware of this fact. I don’t know when I first learned it, but I’m certain it was part of my tenth grade “US History” class. The United States legal system derives from the common law. [Cite.](http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0813047.html) (Except for Lousiana, which derives its system from the Napoleonic civil law). The common law refers to traditional, precedent-based derivations of the law of the land, as opposed to statutory law. [Cite,](http://www.kids.net.au/encyclopedia/?p=co/Common_law) from an easy-to-understand page written for kids. Another [cite.](http://encyclopedia.lawzilla.com/Common_law.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/214 "2004-11-26T21:04:05Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Actually yes, I think there would have been cases where two gay persons attempting to get married would have indeed won, had they even had to sue. I’m not sure why they would have had to sue in the first place, since there was nothing in the lawbooks to prevent them from marrying in the first place. Back in those days, a LOT fewer folks came out of the closest about their sexual orientation, due to fear, not due to laws, which is probably why it was not tested. Actually, if you look into it there were a few attempts by gays to marry in the 70s arguing the lack of specificity in the law. I don’t remember which state was involved, but needless to say the effort was unsuccessful. I tried to google up a cite, but couldn’t find one. I’ll do a little more digging later and see if I can locate something. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/215 "2004-11-26T21:34:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Assuming you’re asking this in good faith, no offense intended but I’m a bit surprised that you’re unaware of this fact. I don’t know when I first learned it, but I’m certain it was part of my tenth grade “US History” class. You’re talking about common law. His statement was that longstanding tradition is **as much a part of the law** as the written word. I dispute that common law covers marriages based on sexual orientation, and have yet to see any evidence to back it up. I’d assume that there are reams of evidence based on precedence or custom to back it up, based on the arguments given earlier. So yes, I’m asking in good faith, and no, your cites do not back up his statement. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/216 "2004-11-26T22:06:03Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You’re talking about common law. His statement was that longstanding tradition is **as much a part of the law** as the written word. I dispute that common law covers marriages based on sexual orientation, and have yet to see any evidence to back it up. I’d assume that there are reams of evidence based on precedence or custom to back it up, based on the arguments given earlier. So yes, I’m asking in good faith, and no, your cites do not back up his statement. Gotcha, I think. I was offering a cite for this statement: \*\*Longstanding tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word. \*\* You were more focused (reasonably so, given the overall discussion) on this argument: **Same-sex marriages are not permitted by tradition, and this particular tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word.** Yes? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/217 "2004-11-26T22:30:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You were more focused (reasonably so, given the overall discussion) on this argument: **Same-sex marriages are not permitted by tradition, and this particular tradition is as much a part of the law as the written word.** > > Yes? Yes, since that is what was specifically being referenced when his statement was made. Contrary to popular opinion, until recently there were a lot of states which didn’t specify the sex of two partners in marriage. When the gays started making headway against various forms of discrimination, a lot of states quickly passed laws defining the term more narrowly. If tradition had the same weight as the written word, these quickly passed laws (and the even more recent constitutional amendments, which I’m assuming are intended to add more weight) would have not been necessary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/218 "2004-11-26T22:40:17Z")
**DMC** : Do you a cite of there EVER being a SSM performed and recognized by a state in the US prior to the latest MA court decision? Are you really going to argue that marriage (in the legal sense) has historically in the US been a vague concept, that easily encompassed same sex unions, as opposed to meaning the union of opposite sex partners? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/219 "2004-11-26T23:10:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **DMC** : Do you a cite of there EVER being a SSM performed and recognized by a state in the US prior to the latest MA court decision? Are you really going to argue that marriage (in the legal sense) has historically in the US been a vague concept, that easily encompassed same sex unions, as opposed to meaning the union of opposite sex partners? That’s not my argument. I’m simply saying that a large number of states did not specify the sex of the participants in a marriage until recently. I already stated that I wasn’t aware of this being tested back in the 80’s, but simply that the statutes in place to prevent it did not exist in many places. That’s when the “tradition” argument was made, and that has also not been backed up. Once again, either tradition does have the same weight as a formal statute (which hasn’t been shown to be the case in this regard), or it does not. Perhaps I’m not wording it well enough, but the concept seems simple to me. If tradition is that influential, the laws specifying partners would not have needed to be passed (and especially not with the speed in which they have been pushed), and the recent amendments on top of these new laws would have been completely unnecessary, OR if it’s not that influential, then marriage between those of the same sex has been legal in this country for a LONG time. Where’s the disconnect? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565/220 "2004-11-27T04:45:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Preserving an important societal institution,” is a good example of the kind of language that has been used in the past to sustain “rational basis.” Very well then. Continuing the teeth-pulling, then, it’s up to those asserting so to (A) provide the definition they use of this institution (and perhaps we can leave aside that the basic question at law is the legal institution as distinct from the social one, hmm?), and (B) explain how it would not be preserved by the proposed change (My own marriage isn’t affected at all by existence of thousands of married gay couples in my state, f’rinstance). Perhaps we can get you to actually address the nub of the question? > [@](#): > > Tradition and history have been used in earlier cases to prove that a particular right is fundamental, so, yes: “tradition” is a good enough reason to survive the “rational basis” test. > > Again, this may seem to fly in the face of the “Native English Speaker” of “ **ElvisL1ves** ” Test. But as I explained above, that’s not the right test to apply. Wouldn’t the argument that the right to marry the person of the gender you choose is fundamental make the “tradition” argument, however lame, _support_ SSM? What “fundamental right” could be invoked against it? What else is left to argue in court anyway? **Dewey** , since you’ve decided not to take your vitriol to the Pit after all, perhaps you can also expound upon your assertion that “M=1M+1W” is so fundamental a part of society that it didn’t even get written down in some places until the Eighties. Seems like a post-hoc rationalization, don’t it? **stratocaster** , I’m even more disappointed in this: > [@](#): > > Everyone who disagrees with you is not a bigot, or a zealot, or close-minded, or slanderous. Get over yourself. Those who blithely toss in allegations of support of pedophilia most definitely _are_ slanderous. You need to address that remark a little more responsibly than you seem inclined to so far. Pretending to give you credit anyway, though, here goes: > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you continue to come back with some variation of, “Since it’s a given that banning gay marriage is a violation of equal protection,” while ignoring the counter that tries to dispassionately show that this is NOT a given, not at all. Given the lack of evidence to show the contrary, especially in light of the fact that you pro-discrimination advocates have abandoned legal analysis almost entirely and are now invoking your own version of social tradition instead, it’s fair enough to say that yes, it’s a given. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-is-a-good-thing-unless-you-disagree-and-how-long-have-we-had-it/275565.md?page=12)