Spin, spin, spin

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment narrowly passed by voters declaring marriage to be between two people of the opposite sex only.
James Dobson from Focus-on-the-Family comments:
“”This ruling underscores the appropriate role of judges:
to uphold and affirm the laws enacted by the people and
their elected representatives, not to foist a radical
social agenda on society. It is a welcome — and, sadly,
rare — example of judicial restraint.”

Dobson and his compatriots continue to attempt to twist and spin in the public’s mind what the role of the judiciary truly is, especially on the level of various Supreme Courts. The role of judges is not to “uphold and affirm” the laws enacted by the people or the people’s representatives. The constitutional role of the judges in these types of cases is to determine whether the laws passed by the people’s representatives or instituted through the people’s referenda are constitutional or not!
It seems to me that Dobson and his cohorts want us to believe that judges are to only approve and support (or rubber-stamp) the laws passed by the state assemblies or Congress. This is not the role of the courts – they are a check and balance to make sure the legislatures and executives of this country, or the people through the tyranny of the majority, do not act unconstitutionally.
If the courts declared Row v. Wade unconstitutional or if they declared homosexuality to be unlawful, Dobson and his ilk would hail the courts and their judges as acting in noble, Godly, and patriotic ways, not as judicial activism. Perhaps, since they believe abortion and homosexuality were forced upon the country by the out-of-control courts originally, this would restore their vision of the proper conduct of the courts.
I find it ironic, however, that most Religious and Social fundamentalist groups hailed the Supreme Court decisions that forced civil rights upon the country for the sake of blacks when most of the country – including anti-integration laws passed by legislatures – opposed it. They also supported court-ordered integration of schools, etc. Why do they not oppose these past acts of the courts as “judicial tyranny” and to be declared by “activist judges,” but do make such declarations against judges who strike down laws that deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law? It is simply hypocrisy, and they know it.