Replies

The Supreme Court has passed another law, this one supplanting the law passed by the people of the state of Texas in its democratic process. But you say the Court doesn't pass laws. Well, as Justice Scalia in his angry dissent said, the Court is supposed to be a court, but it has become a super-legislature overriding the decisions of the people.

How does Scalia square his comments with his joining the decision to overturn Oregon's "assisted suicide" law? Isn't that a state matter that's none of the USSC's business?

And how does he & Colson feel about state laws that allow, for instance, medicinal marijuana? Or a state law that would allow gay marriage?

How do Scalia and Thomas square their view that the words of the Constitution have some meaning, when in the decision earlier this court year about the continuing extensions of copyright and patent terms making them de-facto indefinite? They have in effect voided the "for limited terms" clause, and allowed the legislature to be rogue agents of a contract committed (that is, for example, We the People granted a 14 year copyright in 1928 covering Mickey Mouse -- Steamboat Willey) -- by granting indefinite term to Disney these rogue agents have taken the side of one party in that contract, against those they are agents for.

Just as the Federal legislature has grabbed for and taken a rogue agents's power, the Bono Copyright Extension Act being but one example -- there are a myriad of others. Just as the Legislature went rogue, so did the Executive in its abuse of Executive Orders and Bureaucratic Regualtion dictats -- now too the Supreme Court -- ALL 12 -- has marked out its rogue's franchise.

IIRC, the question in the assisted suicide case was whether a federal law prohibiting overdoses of controlled substances would necessarily override a state law allowing their use. This would be a whole different question from the sodomy law question, since there is no federal statute that relates to sodomy.

And how does he & Colson feel about state laws that allow, for instance, medicinal marijuana? Or a state law that would allow gay marriage?

In his dissent, Scalia took the SCOTUS to task mainly for its impatience. He pointed out that societal mores change over time and vary from place to place, so these matters should be left to evolve on their own. It seems to me that Scalia hates the idea of gay marriage, but what he clearly hates more is that the SCOTUS has clumsily misused it's power to allow one thing that most Americans think is OK (not having sodomy laws) but opening the door to practices that only a very few Americans would support. All of this was done using a right that is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution in a manner that shifts the entire way that the law views behavior. Bad, bad news.

As for how Colson would feel about a state gay marriage or medical marijuana law, I'm sure he'd hate them. The difference is, unlike the six Justice majority on the SCOTUS, Colson doesn't have the power to impose his moral judgement on 12 states when he feels like it, or to make up new Constitutional rights.