Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
And we all believe you...
Hmm... let's see, what concerns me more? taking a position one way or the other on gay marriage, or preventing child abuse?
(the latter)
What concerns me more? taking a position one way or the other on gay marriage, or preventing domestic violence?
(the latter)
What concerns me more? taking a position one way or the other on gay marriage, or making sure our power grid isn't hacked by terrorists?
(the latter)
What concerns me more? taking a position one way or the other on gay marriage, or promoting women's rights in Muslim countries?
(the latter)
What concerns me more? etc. etc. etc.
Let's say, hypothetically, that the results that SCOTUS forced upon us in
Roe v Wade is just about where society would have arrived at through a democratic consensus anyway. Had SCOTUS not intervened, we'd be where we are now anyway
except it would no longer be a divisive issue: through a series of compromises among various voting interests, we'd have either enthusiastically or grudgingly accepted the outcome and then moved on. By short-circuiting that process, SCOTUS produced the opposite result. An issue that should have been settled long ago is still agitating people today, merely because they feel something was forced upon them against their will. It is a far different matter having a majority of your friends and neighbors concur on a result you don't like than having nine oracles make a proclamation from on high and ignore your input entirely. You will grudgingly go along with the former and move on; you will maintain long-simmering resentment against the latter years later.
Even worse, the
reasoning behind
Roe v Wade was atrocious. Even people who think that they reached the right result and did the right thing in ruling when they did, shudder at the way SCOTUS arrived at their conclusion: "penumbras" and "emanations"? Seriously? If a high school student presented a paper like that in logic class, s/he'd probably have received a failing grade. It seemed pretty obvious that they started with a conclusion and then scrambled to find a way to justify it afterward.
Similar situation with gay marriage: most states through the democratic process would grant gay couples all the rights they want; and the compromise that would be reached would be to call it civil unions and be done with it. Now, only the militants on either side are exercised over the semantics related to the term "marriage." The debate is no longer about substance, it is only about symbolism.
Kennedy's ruling striking down sections of DOMA was not based on logic nor reasoning, it was based on his emotional reactions. that is not a good foundation for legal precedent. Analogous situation to
Roe v Wade: SCOTUS' position is where the country was already heading anyway, but by short-circuiting (or even worse, by blatantly over-riding) the democratic process, it takes an issue that would have faded into the background because of enthusiastic or grudging compromise, and turned it into a grievance-fest for people who don't like having things shoved down their throats, even if they would have eventually acceded to exactly the same result had force not been applied in the first place.
There are far too many other, more important matters that need our attention beyond an extended argument over the semantics of the term "marriage." They can have all the rights they want exactly as they want them, yet that is not enough. The courts should not step in one way or the other, it is a situation to be resolved through the democratic process, and it's beyond obvious that they have history and momentum and public sympathy on their side.
