Posted on 06/26/2015 8:06:38 AM PDT by xzins
I write separately to call attention to this Courts threat to American democracy. The substance of todays decree is not of immense personal importance to me.
The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. 2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting Those civil consequencesand the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidencescan perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Todays decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact and the furthest extension one can even imagineof the Courts claimed power to create liberties that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
I
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of govern- 1Brief for Respondents in No. 14571, p. 14. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 SCALIA, J., dissenting ment is supposed to work. 2
The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts,3 denying Full Faith and Credit to the public Acts of other States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers reserved to the States respectively, or to the people9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?
Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of todays opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):
[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.10 2Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ______ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 1517). 3U. S. Const., Art. I, §10. 4Art. IV, §1. 5Amdt. 1. 6 Ibid. 7Amdt. 2. 8Amdt. 4. 9Amdt. 10. 10 United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting [T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.11
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provisionsuch as due process of law or equal protection of the lawsit is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendments text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendments ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its reasoned judgment, thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because [t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its 11 Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). 12See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ______ (2014) (slip op., at 78). 13 Ante, at 10. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 SCALIA, J., dissenting dimensions . . . . 14 One would think that sentence would continue: . . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution, or perhaps . . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation. But no. What logically follows, in the majoritys judge-empowering estimation, is: and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.15 The we, needless to say, is the nine of us. History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.16 Thus, rather than focusing on the Peoples understanding of libertyat the time of ratification or even todaythe majority focuses on four principles and traditions that, in the majoritys view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.17
This is a naked judicial claim to legislativeindeed, super-legislativepower; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices reasoned judgment. A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section 14 Ante, at 11. 15 Ibid. 16 Ante, at 1011. 17 Ante, at 1218. 6 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on todays social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in todays majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
II
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in todays judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose todays majority are entirely comfortable concluding that 18The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14571 and 14 574, pp. 15. 19See Pew Research Center, Americas Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015). Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7 SCALIA, J., dissenting every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendments ratification and Massachusetts permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a fundamental right overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their reasoned judgment. These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinions showy profundities are often 20 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003). 21 Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). 22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that 8 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES SCALIA, J., dissenting profoundly incoherent. The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, [i]n any particular case, either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, than the other, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.25 (What say? What possible essence does substantive due process capture in an accurate and comprehensive way? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity, I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. 23 Ante, at 13. 24 Ante, at 19. 25 Ibid. Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9 SCALIA, J., dissenting really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses converge in the identification and definition of [a] right, that is only because the majoritys likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in todays opinion has to diminish this Courts reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
* * * Hubris is sometimes defined as oerweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the least dangerous of the federal branches because it has neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm and the States, even for the efficacy of its judgments.26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to themwith each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the reasoned judgment of a bare majority of this Courtwe move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
26The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).
We’ll probably need them.
I’m sickened by the gleeful reactions of most of the young people in my extended family. My daughter, a conservative by the grace of God, told me that this is the number one issue among today’s college students, and the vast majority are pro homosexual marriage. They have no idea who is running for president, rarely can tell you who ISIS is, or understand what’s going on at the border. All they care about is “gay marriage,” and they’re all voting on that issue.
Many thanks, Xzins, for posting this!
Here’s the link where this and the other dissenting opinions can be read:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/dissent4.html
So what should the Jews have done? Must we wait for some 21st century Allied forces to liberate us?
They are quite simply wrong - just as they were wrong in Roe v Wade. It's not a choice - it's murder. It's not a marriage it's a sin. I don't consider it legitimate, and I don't have to.
They can pretend all they want that murdering babies and marrying same sex couples is ok. I won't be agreeing, and on judgment day I guess we'll find out whose opinion is correct.
God didn't create the human race so that men together, nor women together can perpetuate the species. No it takes a man and a women to do that. So that might be a clue to the clueless.
May the majority of these black robed despots reap the karma they deserve.
What they did in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. x1,000. And that would have made any outside intervention unnecessary.
The difference between then and now is that the statists have developed new techniques. They have not herded us all into ghettos. Instead they are picking us off one by one. They are crippling us financially, chipping away at our 2A rights, harassing us with burdensome regulations, invading our privacy, using government bureaucracy to squash us, etc., etc.
Look at what happened to Republicans in Wisconsin. SWAT team attacks and secret “investigations” where the subjects were not allowed to tell anyone or to have lawyers. Look at the IRS harassment of Ms. Engelbrecht with True the Vote.
They have learned to isolate us from each other. Drip, drip, drip. Today someone in Wisconsin. Tomorrow a rancher out west. The next day the guy in the next block over. The day after that - you.
We need to open people’s eyes to see what they are doing. We need to stop it now, not tomorrow.
The Congress can impeach a supreme court member for lack of “good behavior”. Why haven’t they???
If Congress believes the court is acting politically, they can impeach those members that are.
Why haven’t they??
Because our Congress is dysfunctional, but I’m told that even the earliest judges didn’t fear Congress. It takes a lot of anger to get over half the House of Representatives. And it’s virtually impossible to get a two thirds vote out of the Senate.
People have failed to understand, in spite of the history of lawfare you cite, and the examples of people accused of “hate crimes” by our northern neighbors, that the “gay” rights movement is an existential threat to freedom.
~~~~~
The opinion of the court is absolutely wrong in framing the question as being whether homosexuals have the right to marry like everyone else. Of course they do - which is why the court wishes to frame it that way. The question is whether you can call the sexual union of two people of the same sex marriage.
All this re-defining of words, and dehumanizing those who disagree with the new definitions, is the issue. It will not end well.
One lone justice with courage enough to say what needs to be said.
He can do that anyway, and release the book.after he’s retired. His leaving the court now will just turn this country into Zimbabwe or Iran. This is no time to retreat. This is the time for all out war against the homos Nazis and their far left enablers on the Supreme Court.
Instead of having closet gays we will now have closet normals.
Excerpts of sounder reasoning (emp. mine).
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so...
Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its reasoned judgment, thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because [t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its..dimensions . . . .
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in todays judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose todays majority are entirely comfortable concluding that... every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendments ratification and Massachusetts permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003
They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a fundamental right overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly could not.
They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their reasoned judgment. These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry . And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so....
Rights, we are told, can rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?
And we are told that, [i]n any particular case, either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, than the other, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.25 (What say? What possible essence does substantive due process capture in an accurate and comprehensive way? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes.. .)
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. ..The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in todays opinion has to diminish this Courts reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
* * * Hubris is sometimes defined as oerweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the least dangerous of the federal branches because it has neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm and the States, even for the efficacy of its judgments.26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to themwith each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the reasoned judgment of a bare majority of this Courtwe move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence. - Antonin Scalia; http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
How could an Amendments Convention (of the States) possibly cost us more rights than these 5 members of the Supreme Soviet? A convention of the States is the only political recourse left. The Federal Congress certainly isn't go to do anything. They are firmly ensconsed with their power and perks. They are not going to upset the apple cart.
Please explain how 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the State Legislators could cost us even more rights than these five reprobates.
Cordially,
“Its not 9 but 5.”
It isn’t even 5 people that decided it. It could be reasoned that ONE person decided it.
Hey Bonehead!!
It's a REPUBLIC; remember?
Worry MORE about America's SALVATION!
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name,
shall humble themselves,
and pray, and seek my face,
and turn from their wicked ways; ,
then will I hear from heaven,
and will forgive their sin,
and will heal their land.
This is a stunning read and the “law” now leaves and opening for pedophiles, polygamist ETC to marry. I never thought I would read the words “essence” and “spirituality” in a law. We are done and I’m afraid Obama has won.
THIS 'court' didn't give us ...
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.