chris_gerrib (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chris_gerrib) wrote2013-06-26 09:29 am
chris_gerrib) wrote2013-06-26 09:29 am
WTF, Supreme Court Edition
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.
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.
no subject
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.)
no subject