On the recordApril 10, 1997
I want to briefly talk on the subject of judicial activism. This was talked about a few minutes ago by the majority whip. I have to say that it personally hits home in what I have been reading lately about the threats of judicial activism. I have been teaching my 9-year-old about democracy. We have been going through the history of the Greeks and the Romans and also the British Empire and America, and I have been trying to explain to him about the concept of democracy. It is always interesting to have a 9-year-old asking basic questions like, ``Daddy, what is democracy?'' I struggled with it, but in the end, I told him it is where the people decide how they are going to be governed; where the people make the decisions instead of the kings. I tried to break it down that way, as simply as possible; that it is not the kings, it is not the monarchs, it is not the elitist rulers that rule America, but that the people rule America. I read and was comforted greatly by a decision that came down in California a couple of days ago that addressed judicial activism, where the people were actually allowed to decide how the government was going to be run instead of one elitist judge. I will give my colleagues a little background. The California people decided that they did not want Americans to be judged on the color of their skin or whether they were a man or a woman but, instead, wanted people to be judged and hired based on the content of their character.
Source
govinfo.gov




