Don’t ignore the spur that a judge’s vanity or lust for power can give to judicial activism.  As former senator Fred Thompson puts it in his criticism of California’s marriage ruling last week:

The judge’s job is simply to apply to the circumstances of the cases that are brought to their court the laws that have been written by lesser mortals. The job requires restraint, modesty, and reverence for the established rules of society. The judge is obliged to uphold the status quo until the people decide to change it. Where is the glory in that, for Pete’s sake?

Then, like manna from Heaven, “The Case” comes before his court – the case that can change his ignominious plight. With a few of his like-minded colleagues, he can, in effect, reshape the legal landscape, become a leader of a great cause, get the publicity equivalent to the cover of Rolling Stone, and be hailed by the mainstream press. It dawns on him that he and his buddies on the court can do things that those politicians could never achieve – things that the unenlightened, unwashed herd, otherwise known as “the people” would probably never choose to do.

Now that’s real power! That’s delivering “change we deserve.” All he and a few of his colleagues have to do is discover in their constitution a right previously unknown that has been hiding there in plain sight for about 150 years.