6 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Saved the GOP from Itself – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. RE: “These nine justices, but especially Republican members like Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts, almost single-handedly saved the Republican Party from itself.” ~ R.S.

    THE THANKS THEY’LL LIKELY GET: I can easily see decrepit billboards all along the back roads of the South once having read “Get The U.S. Out Of The UN” but now updated to read “Impeach John Roberts!”

  2. Richard. You miss the forest from the trees.

    The Supreme Court took from us, something fundamental this week, the right to govern ourselves.

    Do we, the people, decide by debate and deliberation, through referendums, legislative action, protests, and other democratic activity, or, do nine lawyers without accountability to the people, decide the issue by majority vote.

    This all important question isn’t about whether gay marriage is a good or a bad idea. Reasonable people can disagree about that. The all important question is: who decides?

    1. @ Mitchell: You’re (unintentionally) hilarious! If I needed a reader/commenter to channel Scalia’s opinion I’d ask for one. You’re a one-man hasbara/GOP sandwich board here. The idea that the Supreme Court “legislated” or pre-empted the legislative process is preposterous. The justices did what they’ve always done throughout U.S. history. They used the constitution to adjudicate a legal issue. As for the notion that the justices are not “accountable,” that too is ludicrous. They are approved after intense & extensive hearings before the U.S. senate during which time they’re grilled on every possible legal issue the senators can think of. Further, the justices are always acutely aware of the political context of their decisions. That is precisely why Kennedy voted with (& created) the majority in this decision. He knows that not only do the majority of Americans favor gay marriage, he knows that this support will only increase over time.

      As for who decides: when it’s a judicial question brought to the Supreme Court, they do. Ever since Marbury v. Madison it’s been that way. And thank God (& the constitution) for that.

      1. Mitchell Blood is also monumentally ignorant of what a US Supreme Court ruling means. Take the case of Texas whose marriage laws still contain the stipulation of “only one man and one woman”. The Supreme Court has not made any new laws for the state of Texas. Only the Texas legislature and the governor can do that. The Supreme Court has ruled that the state of Texas can no longer execute the “only one man and one woman” restriction by a process known as Judicial Review which, as you have pointed out, was established by Marbury v. Madison. That judicial review for Obergefell concluded that the restriction is unconstitutional.
        Who decides? Mitchell is again monumentally ignorant that the answer depends on the process. If a law, regardless whether it is a city, county, state, or federal law and regardless how that law came into being is not challenged then the legal deciders of the first round are always executives (e.g. governors, presidents) and not “we the people”. If the executives veto then legislatures can become the deciders in the second round by overriding the veto. Once again “we the people” decide nothing.
        The first amendment establishes a right for every citizen (and possibly all residents) of our nation to ask for a judicial review of any law. Any law, period. It is known as the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. No legislator, no executive, no judge, and certainly not “we the people” can take that right away. It is a fundamental right. Marbury v. Madison has established that the first amendment right of petitioning can go all the way up to the US Supreme Court which is exactly what has happened in the case of Obergefell.

  3. I hesitate to add a comment to this debate between Americans, and I only claim some right to do so by my passionate interest (as an outsider, yes) many years ago for the Supreme Court proceedings on Bush vs Gore.

    I vividly remember Scalia’s role in these proceedings and the fact, as a recent comment has it, that “not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

    Scalia, this “Archie Bunker in a high backed chair” (Maureen Dowd) then didn’t care about non-elected judges deciding for 320 million Americans, a concern that, I understand, he suddenly displayed in his recent opinion on the gay rights issue in which he whinged that the ruling “says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,…”

    But of course when the issue touched his “eternal principles, like helping a son of the establishment dispense with the messiness of a presidential vote count” (Dowd) the “vox populi” was suddenly regarded as a pinchbeck imitation of the “vox dei”, a voice for which Scalia claims to have a special ear.

    1. And “vox populi” will always be developed by demagogues into a “volksgerichthof”. Example: Senator Joseph Mc Carthy and his committee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *