I'm extremely worried by the content of the dissenting opinions, specifically Roberts', but Thomas' and Scalia's too.
Scalia, aside from being an insulting ass, hid behind his fucking stupid originalism, like we all knew he would. But god the cognitive dissonance in that man's head. Thomas said: "Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government." Clarence, human dignity is innate, just as are human sorrow and human envy. But the government took it away, and now it's giving it back. Not that hard to understand, but then you're an idiot.
Here's where it gets serious. Roberts spent his whole paper spewing the usual states' rights cant. I have simultaneously the least problem and the most problem with that. On one hand, I understand the importance (though hugely overstated in the modern era) of balancing the state and the federal government. On the other, Roberts all but said he supported gay marriage -- just not in his function as a Supreme Court justice. In other words, the court's hands were tied by the law, or whatever. This is insidious. The primary law enforcer in the western world just implied that the law wouldn't allow him to make the morally correct decision; he had to make the legal one. This came very close to costing a lot of people something important for no damn reason. Forest for the trees, Roberts.
Laws are designed to serve the people and when they stop doing so in such a blatant fashion, right under our noses, why do they exist? All I can say is I hope to see some discussion about this going forward, but I sure don't expect to.
The bigger picture is that, on certain issues, this doublespeak is the way dissenting opinions (and a few majorities) have been written for the last ~30 years. One side of the court enacts a policy they think is simply for the greater good, and the other side says: we're voting against this on the basis of our country's legal documents, not what we actually think is right. Or maybe, as in Scalia's case, they actually think the Constitution represents "right" (objectively) which it never did even in 1787. But for the most part I bet it's the former. And that's a destructive trend which has the potential to become even more destructive after 2016.
<edited>
Roberts isn't alone here. Scalia once wrote in a dissenting opinion in a capital murder case that it doesn't really matter whether one committed a crime, only that one was fairly tried. From the dissent in this case:The primary law enforcer in the western world just implied that the law wouldn't allow him to make the right decision; he had to make the legal one.
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
You're kidding right? Right? Because that's the most back-asswards thing I've heard today, and I just had a lifelong smoker try to reason his way into smoking more before a major surgery.it doesn't really matter whether one committed a crime, only that one was fairly tried.
The state cannot possibly make a distinction between "actually" innocent or guilty, and innocent or guilty as determined by a court. The courts are essentially the state's sensory input, if your senses produce wrong information, there's nothing you can do. So the state should seek to implement a court system that best finds the truth (but more likely will implement a court system that serves its own ends).
If I gave the matter enough thought, I imagine I would end up advocating for the abolition of cases being thrown out due to 'mistrial'. Why throw them out completely? Why not start over minus the mistake?^ Sometimes that's what happens but often a mistrial is what allows a criminal to walk away free. That's a good example of right and legal utterly failing to intersect. One of many. Since the genesis of the Age of Reason, laws have been what people chose to replace religion as the arbiter of morality. I submit that we're not doing as well as we think we are. Got a long way to go. ^occasionally there are rational reasons for this, but I don't really like any of them