Cliff Thier talks about the far-reaching implications of the Court’s (and the government’s) “fundamental rights” language.
The WSJ’s editors take on the election ramifications of the decision — a bit of unexpected, and undeserved, good luck for Republicans in a terribly managed campaign season.
All of the above articles on the subject make clear that the case is a bit of judicial legerdemain, creating entirely new rights where none existed before, so as to bypass the troglodytes who troop regularly to the voting booths. Marvin Baxter, a dissenting associate justice, sums up in a nutshell everything that is wrong with the Court’s opinion (and this holds true whether or not one agrees with the Court’s outcome):
“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.” (Emphasis mine.)
Hate John McCain as much as you like — and he’s doing his dangerous maverick thing again which deserves condemnation — but if you want to try to keep more activist judges from getting on the US Supreme Court, gamble on him. I can guarantee you that, no matter how “mavericky” McCain gets, a President Obama, working with a Democratic Senate, will put on the Supreme Court justices who will make your head spin.