WTF, Supreme Court Edition

[chris_gerrib]

So, despite specific language in the Constitution to the contrary, Congress does not have the right to draft legislation enforcing the right to vote. But, despite the words "gay" or "homosexual" not even appearing in the Constitution, Congress ALSO doesn't have the right to pass legislation governing what is recognized as a marriage?

Look, I'm really fine with gay marriage. I really am. But damn it, the Supreme Court is supposed to make decisions based on the Constitution, not on whatever makes them feel good. We did not elect the Supreme Court to be some kind of super-legislature.

Given this one-two punch, it's hard to see them as anything BUT an un-elected legislature.

Comments

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

… Which people on the right say, also, whenever the Court makes decisions favoring the collectivist left. In this case, I'd say they've upheld the 10th Amendment, and good for them! Despite what Dear Leader Comrade Roosevelt thought, the Federal Government does NOT have the right to regulate every aspect of American life without hindrance. Many things ARE supposed to be left up to the individual States - most things, in fact. For the Federal Government to define what constitutes marriage, like it or lump it, is exactly on a par with deciding how many cars may be sold by a given automaker. Butt out!

“'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,' Kennedy wrote.” Damn right.

If you think about it, the only way the Feds could have that right is if we, too, had established a state religion, Church of England style. If our Chief Executive were also Defender of the Faith, then he could speak with the authority of Church and State on what is sinful and what is lawful. It don't work that way. If Taxachusetts wants to eliminate all qualifications so you can marry your daughter AND your dog, while Alabama lays down the law that a man and a woman alone may marry, while the People's Republic of Boulder outlaws all heterosexual marriages as “demeaning to womyn,” well, God bless the Republic!

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

So they upheld the 10th but tossed the 15th? Seems like some amendments are more equal than others.

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

What I read about that was that the court recognized that this is not 1965, that progress in “civil rights” (as the term is now exclusively re-defined) had been made, and it was no longer necessary to subject States which had shown “historical patterns of discrimination” to stringent, punitive procedures differing from those required by other, more favored States - i e those on the winning side of The Recent Unpleasantness with the North. I only read it at the newsstand, I'm not familiar with the details.

I was going to add, re my earlier point, that in answer to the obvious next question, this issue has come up before, specifically regarding age of consent. There's a clause in the Constitution, I disremember exactly what as I sit here, to the effect that States must honor the laws of other States. So Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his thirteen-year-old cousin (I think it was) was not anulled when he crossed the State line! But his new next-door-neighbors (in theory) could not say, “Hey, that looks neat, let's us do that.” So if a mother and daughter who are legally married in Taxachusetts want (for gawd noswhat reason) to move to Alabama, they could still file their State income tax as “married filing jointly.” (They can expect to get audited, but that's their problem.)

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

See my post on "wall theory (http://chris-gerrib.livejournal.com/tag/wall%20theory)."