I was interested in a discussion of the court's reasoning and why it was "judging" and not "activist." I was sorely disappointed.

mchichi:

I was interested in a discussion of the court's reasoning and why it was "judging" and not "activist." I was sorely disappointed.

Would you care to elaborate?

to elaborate:

I really wasn't sure whether this decision was "judging" or "activist." The article title stated that it was not activist; I took that to mean that article would discuss why it was not activist- for example, examine the court's reasoning, examine the basis for its decision (the relevant language of the state constitution), and explain why the activist label (which I know gets thrown around more than it should, but still does apply in a lot of cases as well) didn't fit here. Instead, Lithwick pretty much just complained about people calling the court activist. It was lazy, shallow, and added nothing to the discussion. Lithwick is a better writer than that.

I totally agree. I read it for the same reason and had the same disappointed reaction. Lithwick did not deliver on the title.

I have been reminded elsewhere that Gov Schwarzenegger in vetoing the Same-Sex Marriage bills sent to him by the Legislature said he was vetoing them not because he was opposed to signing them, but that he was vetoing them because he wanted the CA Supreme Court to make the decision.

The bottom-line being the Legislature acted and the Executive punted to the Courts.

The Court in deciding was doing what the Executive had asked it to do, decide if the Executive and Legislature could enact something that overturned a statutory state proposition.

My conclusion from this is that the Court decision was not Activist. It was concurring with the other two branches, as requested by the Governor to ensure all three branches agreed prior to taking this historic step.