mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“A Supreme Sham”: They Call’m As They Prefer To See ‘Em

We can’t know yet how the Supreme Court will rule on same-sex marriage in June, but we already do know this: The decision won’t be based on a dispassionate reading of the Constitution. The 5-4 (or perhaps 6-3) ruling will be a reflection of the political orientation, values, and visceral feelings of each justice; as their “questions” (actually pronouncements) showed this week, every justice except perhaps Anthony Kennedy came into this case with his or her mind made up.

Each side will present elaborate rationales to justify its views, but legal merit will not determine which side prevails. The ruling will simply represent the results of a mini-election on a court as nakedly partisan and polarized as the country itself — a court with four “blue” justices, four “red” ones, and one swing vote. “It becomes increasingly difficult to contend with a straight face that constitutional law is not simply politics by other means,” says University of Chicago law professor Justin Driver, “and that justices are not merely politicians clad in fine robes.”

It was not always thus. Until recent decades, the court’s landmark decisions often came in one-sided rulings (Brown v. Board was 9-0). Presidents sometimes nominated distinguished jurists with indistinct ideologies, such as Byron White and David Souter, whose philosophies evolved over time. That hasn’t happened since Ronald Reagan appointed Kennedy, and it isn’t likely to happen again. So let’s drop any remaining pretense that the justices are impartial arbiters calling “balls and strikes” on the issues that divide us: gay marriage, ObamaCare, voter ID, campaign finance, religious freedom, et al. They call ’em as they prefer to see ’em.

 

By: William Falk, The Week, May 1, 2015

May 4, 2015 - Posted by | Partisanship, Politics, U. S. Supreme Court | , , , , , ,

1 Comment »

  1. There is no case here. As when prop 8 was overturned for being unconstitutional, the opposite sex marriage case could not claim that they would be harmed by same sex couples being married. To your point, I heard the view from Mark Shields, the GOP leadership does not want this case to get in the way of 2016, so the leaders are hoping that the Supreme Court will settle it once and for all to allow same sex marriages. Could they leave this to the states, maybe but that violates past precedence like the Loving case for interracial marriage.

    Like

    Comment by btg5885 | May 4, 2015 | Reply


Share your comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: