Since.

[FromWayDowntown]

^You obviously have no clue about affirmative action. Affirmative action only helps protected classes. It can discriminate whites and jews from it's priveliges solely because they are a very affluent class. This is what i was talking about when the congressional branch interprets what is a protected class and what is not.

What does affirmative action have to do with deciding whether the Cons ution permits a state to discriminate against sexuals who wish to get married? Again, we're talking about two entirely different subjects. Affirmative action policies were designed to eradicate years and years of racial discrimination by requiring that people be proactive with racial minorities in terms of hiring, admitting, promoting, and other such things.

And certainly, laws that discriminate on the basis of race create suspect classes -- but not because Congress says so. That would make no sense.

If Congress could make laws and decide who was or was not a class worthy of protection, legislative enactments that discriminate would (in theory) never be subject to any sort of judicial review. Courts have developed the suspect/protected class construct to aid them in assessing the Cons utionality of legislative acts.

If you were right, gtown Congress could say "Well, we don't think blacks should be a protected class" and then pass a hypothetical law that blacks couldn't get married or couldn't vote or weren't en led to some other governmental benefit, and the courts couldn't say anything about it. That's clearly not how the system works.

The various species of classes are intended to balance the legislative power against the protection of minority groups (whether they be racial, economic, religious, or social minorities). The suspect/protected class distinctions basically say that the greater the past history of discrimination, the less likely it is that government can discriminate. Where a particular group has historically been denied the protection of government, if the government wishes to further deny protection or benefits, it must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so.

Certainly, Congress can pass laws with the intent of aiding certain groups over others, and may express its desire to afford greater protection to identified groups. But in the end, whether a group is treated as a suspect class or a protected class or something else is entirely a judicial determination and then only for the purpose of ruling on the Cons utionality of a law.

[RandomGuy]

This is why we have to limit judicial activism. It cannot be the sole province of the court to determine who the protected and suspect classes are.

Before you call out gtown, think about what he said. We do need checks and balances and this judicial activism has to stop.

gtown, I commend you for your wisdom. You words ring as true right now as they did 5 minutes ago when I first read your post.

Judicial "activism" will stop when legislatures write clear laws and actually address issues meaningfully.

Legislatures tend to be too chicken- to do the hard things that sometimes need to be done.

Thank God we have the wisdom to appoint judges and not elect them at the federal level.

[Extra Stout]

Judicial "activism" will stop when legislatures write clear laws and actually address issues meaningfully.

Legislatures tend to be too chicken- to do the hard things that sometimes need to be done.

Thank God we have the wisdom to appoint judges and not elect them at the federal level.

You are right. Legislatures like to "punt" to the courts so they don't have to take polarizing stances on issues.

It's the major reason why judicial appointments have become politicized.