Activist government

For some time now I have wondered about the rhetoric regarding "activist judges". I know this isn't a new concept, although you try googling it to look for a discussion of the evolution of the term and concept. The web is chock full of mention of the phrase, largely due to the never ceasing efforts of crackers with internet access and the unquestioning love of the term in the mainstream media.

And now I'm adding to it, again, by putting it in my blog.

I've been wondering when it will catch on to extend the term or apply the concept (with a new term) to anyone in government who goes against an agenda which promotes a theologically mandated oligarchy (i.e. "jesus told me to vote republican"). I know this is internally inconsistent. I know that the current anti- "acvitist judge" movement tends to focus on how members of the judicial branch are supposedly illicitly taking away power from the legislative branch, and so it would be extremely unreasonable to hear talk about activist legislators, in name or concept. Then again, I don't find the reason underlying the arguments which support the "American Values Agenda" (see below) to be terribly sound as a general rule. So what will it be? Activist legislators? Runaway legislature?

I'm a fan of irony, so I'll stick with Activist.

Activist US legislators in the House blocked passage of a constitutional ban on gay marriage today. This vote came over a month after activist US senators blocked the amendment, according to this article. Here's some more from the actual text of the story.

The marriage amendment is part of the "American values agenda" the House is taking up this week that includes a pledge protection bill and a vote on President Bush's expected veto of a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research. Bush has asked, and social conservatives demanded, that the gay marriage ban be considered in the run-up to the election.

The White House, in a statement Tuesday, urged passage of the measure. "When activist judges insist on redefining the fundamental institution of marriage for their states or potentially for the entire country, the only alternative left to make the people's voice heard is an amendment of the Constitution."

So you still think my "theologically mandated oligarchy" remark is silly? I don't. But I'd be happy to entertain other terms for the concept. Submit them in the comment section. I'll make a banner out of it if I like it enough.