Or as the much castigated Justice Scalia stated, in keeping with the anniversary we note here today:
Ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force Power to say what the law is, not what it should be.
No, nine, or in this case five, mostly very old people who have very little connection with the average lives of Americans, who are of very concentrated principally Ivy League education, and of very limited professional experience, whose rights they purport to be creating, or which they may be destroying. " And who has that "better informed understanding"? Not the national or state legislatures, apparently, which we understood to be able to legally create rights and privileges. Rights come not from history and tradition, and the court doesn't even mention the Natural Law, which is where the drafters of all of our original organic documents understood them to come from. That's innocuous language presents a stunning proposition. Liberty that remains urgent in our own era. They rise, too, from aīetter informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition,īut rights come not from ancient sources alone. In some ways the most telling comment in the case was the following: The decision, which everyone knows is not really based on a true reading of the Constitution but on a liberal interpretation of what ought to be done, is being widely celebrated by those who have been backing this fairly radical social experiment. Hodges that the United States Constitution, which doesn't include the word "marriage" anywhere within it, and which was written at a time when same gender attraction was uniformly regarded as a horrible personal vice (but before the word "homosexual" was coined*), guarantees the rights of people with that inclination to contract a marriage to a person of the same gender. As anyone following the news well knows, in a five to four decision, the United States Supreme Court decided in Obergefell v.