by TChris

Members of the extreme right are fond of labeling judges as "activists" -- at least if the judge refuses to favor the government in criminal cases, the interests of big business in civil cases, or the narrow-minded agenda of the right in civil rights cases. But judges who interpret state and federal constitutions aren't "activists" for doing so -- they're just doing their jobs.

Last year's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to protect gay marriage as a matter of state constitutional law has been so upsetting to the right (none of whom are actually being forced to enter into a gay marriage) that other state judges may fear to exercise the independent judgment that their jobs require.

Some legal observers say the backlash over the Massachusetts court's decision on gay marriage could have a chilling effect on other state courts.

Still, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall makes no apologies -- nor should she.

"I think judges play an important constitutional role, and the label that somebody puts onto that is one that varies from time to time. ... I -- like, I think, 350 other judges -- do the best they can to uphold the constitution, and the statutes and the common law in this commonwealth," she said, "and then we move on to the next case."