The Supreme Court continues to assault self-government

Mpls (red)Star Tribune ^ | 7/6/03 | Jason Lewis

[Valin]

"Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing."

Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws."

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly established itself as the nation's ruling oligarchy, critics are set to demand a constitutional amendment just in case Lawrence vs. Texas leads to its logical conclusion: gay marriage.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (declaring that marriage in the United States consists of the union of one man and one woman) might be worth the fun, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the cultural elite that its attempts to overturn centuries of Western tradition might not be as easy as imagined.

But more is at stake and more needs to be done. What the country needs, quite simply, is a federal amendment guaranteeing that federalism remains, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the true theory of our Constitution.

[Spruce]

The Strib + Jason Lewis?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Strib's usual tribe of leftists must be vacationing.

[Valin]

I'm going down there and look for pods.

[Blood of Tyrants]

if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the cultural elite that its attempts to overturn centuries of Western tradition might not be as easy as imagined.

They gotta be kidding. Do they REALLY expect us to believe that gay marriage itself doesn't go against THOUSANDS of years of cultural laws and traditions?

[rhema]

Ah, the Strib throws another of its occasional sops to conservatives. Do you know why the paper bounced Katherine Kersten, whose column ran about every other week?

[rhema]

The Strib's usual tribe of leftists must be vacationing.

Not the staff editorialists, all of whom slaver to outdo one another in leftist commentary, a point about which I commented in my (unpublished, of course) letter to the editor:

Every year it's the same end-of-term excitement. The activist wing of the Supreme Court manages, mirabile dictu, to unearth at least one new constitutional right from a labyrinthine, heretofore-hidden penumbral emanation.

OK, here's my choice for Penumbrally Emanative Constitutional Right of 2004: The Supreme Court will decide that newspapers have a constitutional obligation to provide a "critical mass" of viewpoint "diversity" among their staff editorialists. No "quotas" or "separate admissions track" for staff editorial applicants, mind you, but at least an "individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse [journalistic] environment."

Until that decision is rendered, I'll continue to have the time-saving benefit of finding on one Star Tribune page a handy compendium of the respective editorial positions of NOW, NARAL, the ACLU, and the DFL.