townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
Decent points, and I think there have clearly been overreaches in the history of the Supreme Court. As there have with any seat of power. That being said, it seems to me that when government infringes on any right in the name of religion, which this is a fairly transparent example of, then the Court should be allowed to overturn it under the first amendment.Well, there is something to be said that it is their job to interpret the laws, and the Constitution. The Constitution lays out our rights pretty explicitly, and it says nothing about marriage. Should there be an amendment that it is one of our rights along with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc? Maybe, but there isn't currently.
When judges go around saying "I now proclaim that this is a fundamental right" it makes me nervous. It is not their job to decide, like kings, what our rights are and aren't. It is their job to decide the meaning of the text, it is CONGRESS's job to decide what our rights are. What is to stop a liberal Supreme Court from saying that, I don't know, having access to healthcare is a fundamental right? Or how about that everyone has the right to receive a publically-funded college education?
It's the same fear a liberal might have over a conservative court greatly expanding, say, police powers. But we don't want the Supreme Court deciding that "terrorism" is such a big threat that it warrants ignoring the 4th amendment "because the founding fathers didn't foresee it."
Any group of 9 people can have different opinions on what rights should be or shouldn't be based on their own biases. That is why it is their job to interpret the law, not make up new rights. If we want new rights, as a society, we should amend the Constitution, which is done through our ELECTED representatives. If the entire nation does not sufficiently agree, then we can more locally expand our rights, since states can provide more rights than the Constitution, but not less.
When there is no textual backing in the law to support what justices see as a moral right, their correct response should be to say "We believe this should be a right, and we implore Congress to act on it, but as of right now, there is no such law."
I also think there's leeway within the 14th amendment, and the text
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
While this doesn't overtly acknowledge marriage. One can infer an intention that citizens are citizens and therefore one is entitled to all the rights of another. It doesn't seem to be a great perversion of the constitution to determine that if a man should want to marry another man, or a white man marry a black woman, he should enjoy all of the rights any other person entering into a marriage should expect.