- Unlike Congress, though, the Supreme Court is obliged to take a position when confronted by social change. Even the dissenting opinions in the gay-marriage decision showed a sensitivity to public opinion which some politicians lack. In his dissent in Obergefell, Chief Justice Roberts spoke directly to Americans, using conciliatory tones. “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favour expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” he wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits.” Were he a legislator, he went on, he “would certainly consider” the benefits of marriage equality “as a matter of social policy”. As a judge, however, he had to hold that the constitution demands nothing of the sort. “I have no choice,” he wrote, almost apologetically, “but to dissent.”
I'm a big supporter of gay marriage, but the fact that we are relying on the Supreme Court, "a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine" as Justice Scalia put it, to legalize gay marriage, despite clear public support for doing so, indicates to me that American democracy has ground to a halt. The "true" reading of the constitution leads me, and I think most other honest leftists, to the conclusion that the majority ruling in Obergefell v Hodges is based not on judicial questions, but rather legislative impulses. It's time for a new constitution. A constitution which protects the rights of all people, which allows democracy to function without the impediments of filibuster, gerrymandering, and money in politics. If we continue to put our faith in an unelected judiciary, we may one day suffer the consequences.
Are you envisioning a constitution without a supreme court? Ultimately important issues with no "clear" constitutional resolution will wind up in front of a surpreme court, modern constitution or not. I don't think a detailed enough constitution to prevent, e.g., the supreme court of Texas from preventing gay marriage, so it will still come before an unelected (or, worse, elected) judiciary that has to weigh in of this issue is something the constitution limits/protects. I mean, it's not like the current constitution tends to err on the side of discrimination and I see no reason to use historical discrimination as a basis for interpreting the constitution.
The latest polling showed that 63% of Americans support same sex marriage equality. This number is rising year over year at a pretty good clip too. despite clear public support for doing so
This is wrong.
I must have poorly phrased that sentence. I meant to say that yes, there is indeed popular support for gay marriage, which is great. But if the people clear support a policy change, then that policy change should be enacted at the legislative level according to our constitution. Policy-making shouldn't happen through the judiciary in a healthy democracy. Unfortunately, in my eyes, and in that of many conservative lawmakers (I suspect), this decision sets a precedent which legitimizing future judicial law-making. The majority opinion sounded great but, to my reading, was not grounded in a sound interpretation of the constitution. My concern is that the same pattern of reasoning employed by this majority could be used by a future majority to do something you and I would both find disturbing.
Was this graph surprising to anyone else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)#Accuracy Nate Silver has called Gallup on being a historically right-leaning organization.
I was a little surprised to see more people agreeing that the federal government should be responsible, though I imagine that is going to see an increase as well. I think the longer the issue is around, the more people will see it outside the context of party lines and more expect it as just another service the government should be providing on top of other things.