Is the Supreme court now a legislative branch
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
|
Yes the ruled and the argument is over. A new argument can be started. Possibly over frivolous arguments like is the SCOUTUS a law making body since it didn't yield to tea party politics against the fact that this argument would not be made if the court had ruled the other way. 1
point
Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. That's the only argument against gay marriage. You think it is a bad idea. The Supreme Court did not decide that gay marriage is a good idea. The Supreme Court decided that gay marriage can't be prevented by law. Should Congress take up legislation on the way the Supreme Court rules and what they are allowed to rule on ? sure... but as soon as it impacts anyone who can claim standing before the SCOTUS, it will be struck down as unconstitutional.... because it is. the document clearly lays out the separate branches and how one can not do the job of the other. In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." His own view was that: "Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them." Later, in retirement in1819, he wrote that: “[T]he Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. “If this opinion [he wrote in the same 1819 letter] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation.” Well, it’s only Jefferson, but he’s entitled to his opinion. The Supreme court is allowed to enforce rights for every single American instead of a portion. The court did not decide to issue marriage licenses. The court decided that marriage licenses can't be restricted. It is equal powers. Jefferson is right and would not think they were overstepping their power. 1
point
Now that is an outright lie. They did not rule on the Constitutionality of an issue. They even admitted that marriage is not in the Constitution, so by the Amendments to the Constitution, they could not rule on this, as it is an issue reserved to the states. So the only thing they could have looked at, is if the law in question violated a state Constitution. Since they did not do that, they did indeed legislate from the bench 1
point
|
