I do not pretend to be a constitutional scholar, although I have known several, and I enjoy reading about the workings and history of the Supreme Court. So what I am about to say are the views of a professional lawyer but amateur constitutionalist.
This morning I read the majority decision and Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case (Obergefell v. Hodges). The media accounts do not do either opinion justice. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion is an elegant articulation of constitutional principles of due process and equal protection, as well as a profound defense of same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is a forceful argument for judicial restraint, particularly in the field of constitutional law. The dissenting opinions of the other conservative justices also seek to place limits on the Court's role in reviewing challenges to state action.
While the media is appropriately focused on the stunning and, for many of us, welcome outcome, the stark divide among the justices concerning the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and enforcing constitutional principles should not be overlooked. Justice Kennedy's opinion will likely shape due process and equal protection arguments in a variety of contexts for decades to come, and the Chief Justice's opinion will no doubt be invoked by those who support a more limited role for the Court.
These issues are not new. They have been with us throughout our history, and arise virtually every time the Court is asked to strike down state action on constitutional grounds. But decisions like those announced yesterday serve to highlight the divided nature not only of our courts, but of our entire political system and our nation as a whole. At a time when the hate-filled killing of nine innocent Christians at a Bible Study in the South harken to divisions so extreme that they once threatened the very existence of our union, when Presidential contenders bring heightened attention to our political differences, and when partisanship in government has made our Congress largely dysfunctional, we would do well to search for and reflect on the common values that unite us as a people.
Obergefell is not just a case about same-sex marriage; it is a case about our form of government. It will, unfortunately, give fodder to that small, grotesquely misguided minority who argue that decisions of our highest court need not be obeyed. But despite the Court's division, it also should remind us that there needs to be, and there is, a final arbiter of our most serious disputes, and that we live or die as a nation by the Rule of Law.
This morning I read the majority decision and Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case (Obergefell v. Hodges). The media accounts do not do either opinion justice. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion is an elegant articulation of constitutional principles of due process and equal protection, as well as a profound defense of same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is a forceful argument for judicial restraint, particularly in the field of constitutional law. The dissenting opinions of the other conservative justices also seek to place limits on the Court's role in reviewing challenges to state action.
While the media is appropriately focused on the stunning and, for many of us, welcome outcome, the stark divide among the justices concerning the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and enforcing constitutional principles should not be overlooked. Justice Kennedy's opinion will likely shape due process and equal protection arguments in a variety of contexts for decades to come, and the Chief Justice's opinion will no doubt be invoked by those who support a more limited role for the Court.
These issues are not new. They have been with us throughout our history, and arise virtually every time the Court is asked to strike down state action on constitutional grounds. But decisions like those announced yesterday serve to highlight the divided nature not only of our courts, but of our entire political system and our nation as a whole. At a time when the hate-filled killing of nine innocent Christians at a Bible Study in the South harken to divisions so extreme that they once threatened the very existence of our union, when Presidential contenders bring heightened attention to our political differences, and when partisanship in government has made our Congress largely dysfunctional, we would do well to search for and reflect on the common values that unite us as a people.
Obergefell is not just a case about same-sex marriage; it is a case about our form of government. It will, unfortunately, give fodder to that small, grotesquely misguided minority who argue that decisions of our highest court need not be obeyed. But despite the Court's division, it also should remind us that there needs to be, and there is, a final arbiter of our most serious disputes, and that we live or die as a nation by the Rule of Law.
Comments
Post a Comment