(no subject)

[proximoception]

Ha ha! A fuming Alito said this:

For today’s majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental.

Imagine that.

Comments

[andalus.livejournal.com]

The fact that the supreme court has to decide these things says awful, awful things about our democratic legislative system.

Scalia's dissent is hilarious, and I hate the fact that I see his point nearly always, though always disagreeing with his conclusions.

Thomas's was just the worst.

[proximoception.livejournal.com]

Just says the Republicans are in power, which says awful enough things, I guess. Majority support was hit in the polls, what, 2 years ago? And Obama and half the Democrats in Congress didn't openly back it till around then. Around which point even the viable Republican candidates started to mumble stuff about the states deciding rather than "man and woman" crap. Which was where the Demicrats were till like five years before that. This is pretty prompt. Kind of fascinatingly so - as though the whole world discovered at about the same time that there's no real argument against this in a non-theocracy.

How letter and intention dance around each other is an interesting topic, but the conservatives on that Court lost the right to pout about judicial activism about a hundred atrocious decisions ago. The party of law died ages ago, if there ever was one. Tradition vs. fundamentals is where we're at, on the issues where money doesn't care. Money vs. fundamentals otherwise.