[carlo3b]

The judges appear to have read the law and followed it strictly, using dictionary definition.

My point exactly.. The judges could just as easily taken a wide birth in interrupting this case, however once again the secularist judges decided not to. When it came to the Texas Gay case another court chose to find hidden meanings of words that didn't exist.. Save it friend.. you are part of the problem, nowhere close to a solution.

[antiRepublicrat]

Different sets of judges, differing views. There's not exactly a nationwide conspiracy going on.

[Sandy]

When it came to the Texas Gay case another court chose to find hidden meanings of words that didn't exist.

Great. "Hidden meanings of words that didn't exist." That's judicial activism in a nutshell. And you support that?

[antiRepublicrat]

The judges could just as easily taken a wide birth in interrupting this case, however once again the secularist judges decided not to.

So let me get this straight. You believe that judges, when facing a law that is unclear on a subject, should interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, and rule accordingly? Or should they take a narrow interpretation of the law, ruling simply on what it says?

In otherwords, are you for judicial activism or against it? Do you believe judicial activism is good when it suits your purposes?