The U.S. Constitution establishes checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial departments. Both branches have significant court oversight. The Senate confirms federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, appointed by the President. The President may pardon federal criminals, restricting criminal justice. To remove unfit federal judges, the Senate and House may impeach them, even Supreme Court justices. Congress may alter the Constitution, altering judicial rulings.
Personal and political ideas drive Supreme Court action. American judicial activism started with the early 20th-century New Deal. As an activist, the Court interprets the Constitution to address social or political challenges. Restraint suggests that the Court does not debate laws or precedents. Judicial activism may undermine legislative or executive overreach limits (Daum, 2020). Many politicians, historians, and political scientists doubt judicial action. Some desire an active court to meet changing social requirements, while others worry about unelected judges influencing the law. A diverse bench, open decision-making, and Constitutional interpretation may restrict judicial activism. Accountability, diversity, and coordinated judicial decision-making strengthen checks and balances.
A critical legal case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) challenged other limits to same-sex marriage imposed by states. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, stated that the limitations and refusal of registration to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process token protection clause.
Justice Anthony Kennedy contended in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage laws violated liberty and equal protection (Flores et al., 2020). The majority defended same-sex marriage as a right to dignity and equality. Seven—Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor—agree, But Justices John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, arguing the bench had authority. The dissidents involved in pilferable diabetes, a degree of governmental choices concerned about democratic decadence and degradation. Justice Kennedy’s majority interpreted the Constitution wide to establish a new fundamental right, demonstrating judicial activism. The Court vigorously addressed a rising social issue outside legal interpretation.
Obergefell v. Hodges protects constitutional liberty despite judicial activism. This case is with the Court’s readiness to modify constitutional concepts in light of changing social standards. This may undercut stare decisis by challenging marital interpretations. “To stick to decisions” is stare decisis. Judicial activism may reverse stare decisis. The Obergefell dissent by Chief Justice Roberts stressed precedent and state marriage laws. He said the Court should have honored democracy and states. Vertical stare decisions require a higher court to copy a lower court’s precedent, whereas horizontal decisions require within-court imitation. United States Supreme Court utilizes horizontal stare decisis. Federal appeals courts follow Supreme Court precedents using vertical stare decisis. Stare decisis maintains stability and predictability.
Based on Obergefell v. Hodges, I would have agreed with the majority conclusion that same-sex couples may marry. My conclusion would be based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection provisions, supporting the majority’s claim that withholding this right undermines liberty and equality.
The growing awareness of constitutional rights and equal protection under the law supports my opinion. LGBTQ+ rights are also gaining popularity (Daum, 2020). The discrepancy between my proposed rule and actual legal practices, especially in states prohibiting same-sex marriage, underscores the ongoing tension between constitutional interpretation and states’ rights. Legal education and advocacy may promote diversity and understanding to narrow this gap. Local and federal legislation may also reflect evolving social and constitutional standards.
Social media and electronic legal tools may affect same-sex couples’ rights. Legal practitioners seeking positive legal reforms may study, share, and collaborate using electronic legal tools. Social media can educate, inform, and assist activism. It may also deceive and divide. Use digital legal research and social media to spread truth to change. Online forums encourage respectful debate. We must confront misinformation and online abuse. Verifying information veracity, encouraging online civility, and ensuring online discussions may help solve these challenges.
In conclusion, I agree with Obergefell v. Hodges on constitutional rights and equal protection. Legal education, legislative actions, and appropriate technology usage are essential for constructive legal reforms that reflect changing social values.
References
Daum, C. W. (2020). Social equity, homonormativity, and equality: An intersectional critique of the administration of marriage equality and opportunities for LGBTQ social justice. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(2), 115-132.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044
Flores, A. R., Mallory, C., & Conron, K. J. (2020). The impact of Obergefell v. Hodges on the well-being of LGBT adults.https://escholarship.org/content/qt71b9687m/qt71b9687m.pdf
write