Johnson and other critics say Owens' position in both cases is proof that she is a liberal "activist" judge who is too willing to decide policy matters that should be left to the Legislature.
But Owens suggests there are times the court has to play such a role.
"The Legislature is really behind the times socially," she said during a recent interview with editorial writers at the Yakima Herald-Republic.
The Legislature defines where we are socially, because they represent the "social" body that is our entire electorate. Who is she to say who's "ahead" or "behind" that? And even if we are "behind," that's explicitly not the role of the judiciary to make those changes. This is tyranny of the elite stripped bare for all to see.
It's ironic that liberals are wailing and gnashing their teeth over conservatives "buying" seats on the Supreme Court, just because they dare to fund and run a competitive campaign. Do you think Owens' financial support from gay-activist groups had anything to do with her extra-legal votes in In re L.B. or Andersen v.
The Post-Intelligencer calls the "legislating from the bench" attack a "slur" that threatens a "fair, impartial and independent judicial system." But Justice Owens is legislating from the bench - by her own admission. And you can't be "fair" or "impartial" if that's what you're doing. What's more, it's disturbing to see the P-I so ignorant of the larger danger of upsetting the careful balance of our government's seperated powers. A Judicial Superlegislature does nothing to protect our rights.
Justice Owens openly declares that she thinks it's perfectly appropriate for a Justice to make policy from the bench, when she and she alone decides where we should be "socially." For that reason alone, she's unsuited to be there.