What I Say: Your Head Trucker reminds you that the legal and constitutional issues are complex, with many possible outcomes, and if the result is not all that you think it should be, it's no good whining and bellyaching like the rightwingers do about "unelected judges." We live under the rule of law, and up at the very top of the pile there has to be an umpire to have the final say. So deal with it. And no, you don't have a better idea, bubba, so sit down and hush up.
Once again, your Head Trucker predicts that the outcome of these two cases will be 1) that same-sex marriage is restored to California, and 2) that the federales will have to recognize same-sex marriages wherever they are legal. Anything beyond that will just be icing on the cake. But the Supremes are going to follow public opinion, not drag it kicking and screaming into the future. A lot more work for equality will remain to be done nationwide after this week. Bet on it.
Update: Speaking to the North Carolina Bar Association on Friday, Justice Scalia declared somewhat ingenuously - and with a note of desperation, perhaps? - that judges should not rule on moral issues because "Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no 'scientifically demonstrable right answer.' As such, he said, it’s a community’s job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts’."
Of course, in the past he has never hesitated to mouth about moral issues both on and off the bench. And he knows full well that such cases are argued not in terms of morality, but according to the stated provisions and principles of law. I wonder if Scalia is pissed off because he's already been outvoted in chambers by his fellow judges on the two marriage lawsuits. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.
%20-%20%20Portrait%20de%20Cecil%20Beaton%201937-%20NAtional%20Portrait%20GAllery%20London%20.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment