Both were incorrect, in my opinion. But both were also upheld by the people who decide those things.
You and I do not get to vote.
Its not a democracy, no matter what they tell us.
RE: But both were also upheld by the people who decide those things.
Both were upheld by a bare majority of people who decide those things. We are going to allow 5 people dictate for us how we ought to live?
Dredd Scott was considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL and people were not BOUND to obey it.
For a law to be binding on people, it has to be PASSED BY THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of the people.
Neither the state of Kentucky nor the Congress of the United states has passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage.
For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:
* A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution;
* Some prior court precedent;
* History and the Common Law;
* Our cultural customs or traditions;
* Some other law enacted by Congress.
The 5 lawyers who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage,” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.
The same was true of Dred Scott.
And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.
As President Andrew Jackson famously quipped of a Supreme Court opinion he thought usurped his executive authority, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
After the Dred Scott decision was released, Sen. William Pitt Fessenden, R-Maine, who later served as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of treasury, said this: “[It is charged] that I am undermining the institutions of the country by attacking the Supreme Court of the United States! I attack not their decision, for they have made none; it is their opinion.”
These people were not being lawless, it was the men in black who were the ones who failed to uphold the law.
Over the last few decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy – a dangerously dominant concept that erroneously regards the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all things public policy. If this is so, then these nine unelected lawyers are ultimately unaccountable to anyone or anything, and the other two branches of government are but toothless figurehead bodies merely spinning their wheels while spending our dollars.
The people of the United States, if we still value our freedom should fight this notion.