Two Chief Justices In One!

Another day, another fundamental reordering of American society by the Supreme Court — this time, as expected, by just one man. The decision is just out, and I haven’t had time to read it yet. I did see this, though, from Chief Justice John Roberts:

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

What a difference a day makes.

18 Comments

  1. the one eyed man says

    Noah Feldman finds Chief Justice Roberts to be entirely consistent.

    “Roberts has a legitimate legacy as an advocate of judicial restraint, as he demonstrated Thursday in upholding the Affordable Care Act for the second time. Logically, then, Roberts was in a position to criticize Kennedy’s opinion for judicial activism — which it unquestionably is. ”

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-26/a-gay-rights-decision-for-the-ages

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 10:47 am | Permalink
  2. nearest hippie says

    Sure, go on ahead and . . .

    Ask me anything.

    Ha!

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 10:53 am | Permalink
  3. the one eyed man says

    “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

    It is so ordered.”

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:04 am | Permalink
  4. pavetack says

    Clearly what Roberts meant was “Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, AND what it should be.”

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:06 am | Permalink
  5. Malcolm says

    Yep, it’s all about feelings. The hell with the Constitution, states’ rights, and the American peoples’ right to define their fundamental cultural institutions as seems right to them, and to make their laws by legislation.

    Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

    But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

    Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

    Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens–through the democratic process–to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

    The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:28 am | Permalink
  6. Essential Eugenia says

    Just bend over and take it like a man, Malcolm. Relax. This won’t hurt at all. Trust me.

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink
  7. Whitewall says

    “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.” Thus they have gone down the path of Roe v Wade. Settled? No where close to it.

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 11:39 am | Permalink
  8. katy in vermont says

    Speaking of feelings, I haven’t been this happy since yesterday’s Supreme Court decision!

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  9. Malcolm says

    Right, “katy”, there you go. Rule of law? Pffft. That’s so dead-white-male. Now we have the rule of feelings. Whee!

    Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.

    Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or–more precisely–who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two…

    …Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

    This Roberts dissent is really very good. Where was this man yesterday?

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
  10. Troy says

    Divorce attorneys are salivating.

    Posted June 26, 2015 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
  11. Whitewall says

    David Duff is looking over the pond and wondering about us this morning.
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2015/06/queen-barrie-rules-ok.html

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 8:23 am | Permalink
  12. JK says

    I find myself wondering how it is that, in 2010 signs were apparent AQI was about to morph into something far different and seven years later only now has the old-school Iraq playbook been dusted off.

    Yet.

    Somewhere in the neighborhood of seven hours after The Supremes announce the decision to morph the Republic, the residence of the Commander in Chief is bathed in the colors of that flag.

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 9:53 am | Permalink
  13. Whitewall says

    JK, Obama’s enemies are not the same as America’s enemies. We have deployed around the world for the last 50 years to fight “the enemy”. The enemy is here behind our backs all this time. Forget “over there”. Time to fight right here.

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:05 am | Permalink
  14. JK says

    You’re [for the most part] correct Whitewall. I, for the most part am merely observing

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink
  15. JK says

    Haven’t finished my first coffee yet – standby.

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink
  16. JK says

    cont. at the speed of what “just happened.”

    Some time agoago a fence-jumper managed to get into The Residence – ‘everybody’ yells Do Something! then, in short order the first jumper is followed by another then a drone then a box of letters by air-mail.

    We can only hope by now that formerly described “most secure real estate in the nation” is as advertised. Admitting however, it did take some period of time.
    __________

    Which leads me to think maybe we ought switch out the Supremes for the JCS; they do get things done, & then, fit the former JCS members with black robes.

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:54 am | Permalink
  17. Whitewall says

    JCS huh? If you replace General Dempsey with someone with a little spunk, then I might be interested. Naturally I guess the DOJ might come next? And then…what have we done? In Britain, those types are elevated to the House of Lords and given interesting titles.

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 11:15 am | Permalink
  18. JK says

    Well WW, I figured switching Dempsey with Ginsberg. I dithered between Kennedy or Roberts originally but their habit of switching direction gave me pause.

    A Chief of Staff General Ginsberg should take any heat off me from the Feminazis.
    __________

    Having abit more difficulty figuring who to make Chief Justice but I think I’d probably … alma mater nepotism accusations be damned … go with Winnefeld.

    Posted June 27, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*