Can A Supreme Court Re-define Words?

self-vanity | 7/26/03 | Eastbound

[Eastbound]

In a recent discussion on a 'right to marry' thread, a new poster made the statement that the Mass. supreme court was in the process of 're-defining' the word, 'marriage'' to include homosexual unions. Throughout the history of the human race, the word, 'marriage,' always referred to the union of a man and a woman. In fact, the legal dictionary specifically defines 'marriage' as pertaining to a man and a woman.

The question I would like to address is not whether homosexuals do or do not have the 'right' to marry, but more importanty, does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun that has been previously defined (both legally and socially) as a very specific and un-ambiguous thing.

For example, can the supreme court legally re-define the color, 'red,' to include some shades of yellow or orange which have heretofore been defined as a wave lengths existing between specific high and low frequency limits?

For example: Suppose I wanted my den painted any shade of blue and the contractor painted it red. I sue and lose because the court said red was a shade of blue, re-defining the color frequency limits to include red to the previously-defined blue spectrum. In essence, the court re-defined what constituted the color, blue.

If the supreme court can add to the definition of a word, then we have to assume that it has the authority to subtract from the definition of a word. Think of the possibilities when it comes to the Second Amendment.

I see no difference between the court changing the definition of the word 'marriage' and the word, 'blue.' If the court is allowed to follow through on this, I am pursuaded that the 'rule of law' as we know and practice it will be destroyed. Am I wrong?

[Principled]

What indicates to you that I have a problem???

I simply asserted my opinion that I think "civil" is not a good choice, as it connotes differing degrees of civility between gay and heterosexual marriages.

I offered a choice of my own, "gay marriages".

That's all, no problem here.

[DeFault User]

Several examples of redefining words have occurred in insurance court cases, all to the detriment of coverage. In the mid 80's there was a court case in New Jersey which dealt with a municipal landfill that had been leaking pollutants for years and contaminated ground water and wells. The town's insurance carrier refused to pay the lawsuits because the liability policies in force in those days covered pollution that was "sudden and accidental".

Despite the fact there was nothing "sudden" about it and no "accident" caused the loss, the court ruled against the insurance carrier. What was the result? The carrier had to pay for the contaminated wells and cleaning up the damage. But more importantly, insurance carriers, realizing that words could be so easily redefined by courts, excluded all pollution liability in standard policies. Now, nobody has the coverage unless they buy expensive, specialized policies.

This type of case happens again and again, filling policies with incomprehensible "legalese". Courts will come out with a sympathy ruling, turning plain language on its head. But the consequences only serve to increase premiums and limit coverage.

[Jeff Gordon]

I think it's the position of the red/green lights that is the primary cue to color blind folks not the color.

If the light was pure Red, the RG color blind person could not tell if the light was on or off. Believe me, I know. I have encountered pure Red and Green lights in other parts of the world. I either have to not drive or have a pair of good eyes in the car.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The meanings of words are traditional.

You can learn the meanings of french words from a French-English Dictionary, but you had to learn your native tongue (e.g., English) by tradition.

And twisting the traditional meanings of words is SOP for those who would make "some animals more equal than others."

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Question: "...but more importanty, does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun that has been previously defined (both legally and socially) as a very specific and un-ambiguous thing."

Response: I think what they are doing is a form of Nominalism.

[gatex]

".... does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun ...."

Well, "infringed" in the Second Amendment answers the question about verbs --- so it follows that nouns may also be re-defined.

[Eastbound]

"'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'"

Love those 'slithy toves.' Thanks for the reply. I suspect Alice eventually learned, as many of us have, that 'verbs' rule and are 'masters' of the court. Nouns just don't have a chance in front of a judge. ;-)

[Noachian]

Of course the SCOTUS can redefine a word, or a phrase, or a clause.

The Court has already defined the word "life", and because of that definition 40 million souls have never seen the life that the Constitution guaranteed them. An entire generation condemned to oblivion because unelected judges defined a word to suit their own agendas.

If "life" can be defined and redefined will "marriage" be any different?

The interpretation of the Constitution is whatever the unelected High Court says it is, and whatever they deem a word to be then so be it. Who will stop them? They have a lifetime job and answer to no one.

Since the elected Legislature and the elected Executive will not use their authority to counter the unelected High Court's rulings that unelected court has, in effect, become the primary law making body in this nation as regards social institutions.

There will, almost certainly, be an attack on the wording of the 2nd Amendment in the not to distance future. And look for wording to be changed in the 1st Amendment regarding the government's right to prohibit the free exercise of religion because of Islamic terrorism.

[Eastbound]

Humorous -- but true at the same time. Especially the word, 'is,' which is the realm where true law is applied.

(As an aside, I suspect Clinton was getting ready to unload a legal bombshell so they let him slide rather than get in a public argument about the merits of fiction jurisdiction where verbs and adverbs reign, versus the 'now' jurisdiction where nouns are king. Clinton played his trump card and rattled the court when he let them know he knew what 'mirror' law was when he made his famous what is 'is' statement. They knew he was ready to blow the whistle if they didn't back off. And back off they did.)

But now the courts are starting to play word games again and it doesn't bode well for the rule of law if the court is allowed to re-define the words used in existing law. Their job is to define what the law is based on words used in the law which already have specific and non-ambiguous definitions -- not to re-define those words. This practice dis-enfranches We, the people, who have already agreed (through Congress) on word definitions when the laws are created using those words.

Are the courts going to be allowed to change the Constitution with a swipe of the pen based on bad opinions rather than allow the people to speak and create new laws or amend the constitution in a manner prescribed by law?

Who needs a constitution or a rule of law if a handful of appointees can sit as kings and arbitrarily legislate from the bench? Send Congress home. They aren't doing their job and are taking money under false pretenses.

[Eastbound]

"I think it's a case for the legislature not the courts."

You may be correct, but I'm not sure that even the senates can RE-define words that already have a definition. I think the Fourteenth Amendment establshed a precedent dis-allowing a re-defining of a word that was already defined in the U.S. Constitution.

I submit:

The word, 'Citizen,' (upper case 'C") in the constitution had a specific definition and Congress decided it didn't have the authority to change the definition of that word to include people that couldn't meet the qualifications demanded by that definition.

So it did the next best thing. It created another word, 'citizen,' (lower case) and an entirely new institution for those citizens, (federal citizenship) and bestowed upon this new group (or recognized) all the rights, privileges and protections heretofore enjoyed by 'Citizens.'

So rather than go through the Amendment process and create a new word that is similar to the word, 'marriage,' which is likewise legally defined, the Supreme Court in Mass. is in the process of re-defining the word to include a class or group of people that don't meet the qualifications demanded by the legal definition of that word..

Why didn't the supreme court of yesteryear do the same thing with the word, "Citizen," to include the freed slaves and other non-citizens whose rights were long over-due for recognition instead of going through the process of amending the Constitution?

I think it was because the supreme court knew it didn't have the right to change the definition of the word. If that be true (or even if was for a different legitimate reason), why does today's supreme court feel it has that right to subvert the amendment process?

[Eastbound]

" Liberals are willing to do whatever it takes, . . . "

Yes, I agree. And we will be damned and convicted by the same law we are trying to preserve. I smell smoke on the horizon.

[reg45]

After all we recently had a president who didn't know what the definition of "is" was.

[Eastbound]

"So yes, the SCOTUS and other government agencies and representitives can re-define words. Look at what Billy Boy did for the definition of "sex.""

Well, you have a point. I'll consider that. ;->

Thanks for the information on traffic lights. Wondered why I always got off late when the 'tree' lit up. :-)

[Eastbound]

"Yes."

Thanks, Rodney. Now let me ask, do you think it should have the authority to re-define words?

[Eastbound]

Very interesting, supercat. Thanks for the information and taking the time to reply.

[jpsb]

Can A Supreme Court Re-define Words?

Obviously they can and do.

[Eastbound]

"At the Federal level, this is defined in our written Constitution. Each State also has a written Constitution: What has been agreed to by the people of that State. To seek to alter it, by putting interpretations on words that were not intended, is an act of usurpation, pure and simple. That Courts in the past century have repeatedly played such games, is one of the sorriest commentaries on the nearly dead public morality in contemporary America. "

Well said, Ohioan. Worth repeating. Still looking for a remedy, but can't come up with one.

(Poe, yes. And another book, 'Animal Farm' comes to mind.)

[Eastbound]

"But more importantly, insurance carriers, realizing that words could be so easily redefined by courts, excluded all pollution liability in standard policies. Now, nobody has the coverage unless they buy expensive, specialized policies."

And you can bet those specialized policies are bullet-proofed with the most un-ambiguous words in language construction.. But still, given the right incentive, the court will find a way around that, I suspect. Higher premiums, unintended consequences. Thanks for the information, Default User.

[Eastbound]

"And twisting the traditional meanings of words is SOP for those who would make "some animals more equal than others."

As in "Four legs good, two legs bad." Yup! Agreed.

[foreverfree]

bump