Activist judges going "inactive" . . . at least for now

Rich Lowry chronicles the positive developments in recent months on the "activist judges" front. Though the Tennessee S.Ct.'s decision to allow voters to be heard on the issue of homosexual "marriage" isn't referenced, it certainly belongs in a list of decisions reflecting judicial restraint and separation of powers. An excerpt:

The Washington decision, as well as the other important recent one in New York, rejects the argument that opposition to gay marriage is based only on rank prejudice. It says the Washington legislature was “entitled to believe” that preserving the current definition of marriage encourages a family structure that is best for children. Well, thank you very much! It is a symptom of our era of judicial fiat that it plays as some sort of far-reaching concession when a court says lawmakers are entitled to believe something that has been a bedrock belief throughout recorded human history.