Links to good discussions of the Calif Supreme Court decision

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.

As was to be expected, National Review quickly put together a whole catalog of articles about the ruling, with thoughts from the editors themselves, William Duncan, Maggie Gallagher, and Ed Whelan.

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conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.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.