The Indiana Senate failed to put a referendum on the ballot for November to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and Sen. Mike Delph kind of lost his mind over it on Twitter, posting dozens and dozens of comments that put his persecution complex and ignorance on display. Exhibit A:
Oh, of course. Because only Christian countries have laws against killing right?
No, judicial review is not the same thing as judicial activism. The court cannot “resolve cases and controversies” without interpreting the Constitution, since that is the basis for resolving them. And judicial review was exactly what Article 3 gives the courts the power to do, as was made absolutely clear in Federalist 78:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
I know the news can travel slowly to Indiana sometimes, but the 14th amendment was passed almost 150 years ago now. Maybe it’s time they updated the textbooks or something.
Really? The guy who thinks judicial review isn’t in the constitution and apparently the 14th amendment isn’t either is going to lecture others about civics? How amusing.