While there will always be some vagueness within the law, it is important that judges try to be as objective as possible. Unfortunately, it can be hard to discern those that are knowingly biased and pushing an agenda vs. those that aren't.
true.... part of the job of judges in exercising judicial restraint is to answer the question before the court with specificity.
The judge's opinion should address the instant facts rather then offer a road map for a future suit (this stuff is referred to as
dicta and it has a place - an important one - but one can go too far). On that score constructionists may be accused with more accuracy but again, they as people who admire restraint and try to avoid politics, are less likely to do it. But it does happen.
Discerning a political agenda... asking the courts to allow or prohibit that which has heretofore been an issue no one would think to dispute. Now, that such an issue may have ancient standing does not give it foundation to stand. But trying to cutting it down is activist. Sometimes this is a necessary thing... not the activism but the cutting down. It is the job of the legislature to do the cutting with such awful things like slavery, separate but equal etc. Just because the court may be subjectively and morally correct in Bd v Brown does not mean it has authority to act.
That would be a place where the court should uphold the law and in Dicta shame the hell out of the legislature for such an obvious and glaring failure in their duty to the people. The rule of law matters... when it doesn't it becomes much easier to uphold injustice of that kind.
