Unlike Congress, though, the Supreme Court is obliged to take a position when confronted by social change. Even the dissenting opinions in the gay-marriage decision showed a sensitivity to public opinion which some politicians lack. In his dissent in Obergefell, Chief Justice Roberts spoke directly to Americans, using conciliatory tones. “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favour expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” he wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits.” Were he a legislator, he went on, he “would certainly consider” the benefits of marriage equality “as a matter of social policy”. As a judge, however, he had to hold that the constitution demands nothing of the sort. “I have no choice,” he wrote, almost apologetically, “but to dissent.”

Ezana:

I'm a big supporter of gay marriage, but the fact that we are relying on the Supreme Court, "a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine" as Justice Scalia put it, to legalize gay marriage, despite clear public support for doing so, indicates to me that American democracy has ground to a halt. The "true" reading of the constitution leads me, and I think most other honest leftists, to the conclusion that the majority ruling in Obergefell v Hodges is based not on judicial questions, but rather legislative impulses.

It's time for a new constitution. A constitution which protects the rights of all people, which allows democracy to function without the impediments of filibuster, gerrymandering, and money in politics. If we continue to put our faith in an unelected judiciary, we may one day suffer the consequences.

posted 3209 days ago