Was Brown v. Board of Education a case of judicial activism?

The "Seperate but equal" would have stood, except it was demonstrated that it wasn't. Equal that is.

I don't really see that as judicial activism. Merely enforcing equal rights amongst all people.

It would have been judicial activism if separate but equal really was equal, but the court wanted to enforce diversity.

i think of the respond to this question will all matter on the guy your asking... there is not any precise or incorrect answer. Judicial Activisim refers to a determination, made by capacity of a choose, that doesn't mirror a clean interpretation of the form. His determination is prompted completely by capacity of "activisim" and attempting to added his very own own social ideals/perspectives. Judicial Restraint refers to a determination made by capacity of a choose it is desperate by capacity of a extra strict intepretation of the Constituion. it is, the choose's opinion is consistent with what he felt that the Framers of the form meant. for my section, Brown V. Board of training might properly be interpreted as being the two activisim or restraint. The question is, did the Framers of the form intend to have blacks and white attending the same faculties? Did they view whites and hues as being equivalent? as much as I oppose racism and help the determination in Brown, i think the justices' determination in Brown grew to become right into a clean case of judicial activism. Judges have been attempting to create social exchange as antagonistic to examining the form. After the determination, states have been predicted to enforce the recent rules forthwith. As might properly be imagined, faculties interior the South tried to tug their ft in enforcing the exchange. national look after forces have been used at some faculties to guard blacks.

A ban on gay marriage is discrimination on the basis of GENDER.

If a woman can marry a man, then a man should have that right too.

If a man can marry a woman, then a woman should have that right too.

MEN and WOMEN should have the right to marry the SAME SELECTION OF PEOPLE.

We have a constitution to guarantee civil rights under the law so civil rights shouldn't be up for a vote.

if you feel the need to explain your criticism, maybe you need to rewrite the question? I dunno, just an observation, you seem to discuss blacks and judges and deviant behavior at length, then you say you are criticizing anti-gay marriage. Kind of confusing and yes, it may just be me. That said, regarding gay marriage, i like what bill maher said on the subject: "if you are against gay marriage, then don't marry one". I use this a lot when i encounter anti gay marriage people and i'm sure it would be okay with bill if you used it, too.