The Law and the Supremes

Social glue underlying Western civilization is a belief that Law exists, a body of rules to point to righteous action, and to forbid sinful action.  And the law is the same for every citizen and cannot be changed to benefit the wealthy, the powerful, and the well connected.  Except for a few criminals, people obey the law because they believe in it.  Courts and judges exist to fit the law to the specific  case before them, and to clarify vague passages. 
   In America, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall in the famous case of Marbury vs Madison, decided that he and his court had the right to cancel Congressional laws if they contradicted the Constitution.  We let Marshall get away with this arrogation of power,  judicial review is NOT in the Constitution. 
   This session of the Supremes has seen the concept of judicial review expanded to the creation of nationwide gay marriage, and the rewriting of Obamacare to make it more palatable.  Nowhere in the Constitution does the word marriage even appear.  Changing the plain wording of a law is a new one.  Clearly the Supremes have demonstrated that the Law is merely what they (5 of them) say it is.  This is a big step down from Moses bringing stone tablets down from Sinai, just a few unelected lawyers can now engrave anything they like on the stone tablets.
    As voters, we ought to be looking for a president who will appoint better justices than the flakes we have now.
    The other thing we ought to do, is insist that all Supreme court rulings be unanimous.  Right now we have 5 to 4 decisions, where four of the nine top lawyers in the country write dissenting opinions calling their colleagues kooks.  We would have fewer outrageous decisions if we required all nine justices put their names to them. 
    We should also remember those disastrous Supreme Court decisions.  Dred Scott triggered the Civil War.  Plessy vs Ferguson was a disgrace that dishonored Jefferson's words "All men are created equal".   The Supremes have done some good over the years, but they have also done some bad.  To see them arrogating yet more power to themselves is scary.  

The Supremes

The word "marriage" does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.  But the Supremes are thinking about changing US marriage law to include same sex marriage.  The Constitution doesn't give the Supremes the right to mess with marriage.  They are going to do it just because they can. 
   Groovy.  Real Democracy that.  Allow nine out of touch lawyers to make new law for the entire country.  Judges love it.  Gay marriage advocates love it,  easier than doing the political campaigning to get the issue thru the legislature.
   New law in a democracy ought to come from the elected legislature, not the courts.  Last time the Supremes made law on a social issue, was Roe vs Wade nearly 40 years ago.  The voters are still sore about that one.  Had abortion law been properly passed by the legislature[s],  there would be a lot less resistance, a lot less hostility, and a lot less name calling, and far greater social cohesion. 
   I am making an argument about process, not substance.  Process is important for the social and political cohesion of the country.  If a thing is done fair and square, in accordance with the rules, people tend to go along with it.  If a thing is done in a sneaky and underhanded fashion, people fight it.  Look at Obamacare..  And, there is no need for the Supremes to dictate new law in this case.  A fair number of states have already passed gay marriage laws, and the polls show enough votes out there to pass it nearly everywhere. 

Times are changing

My college alumni magazine turned up in today's mail.  So I flip thru it looking for mention of any one I might still know.  It's been quite a few years.  So skimming the page of newly weds, all dressed in their best, we now have a gay couple smack in the middle of the page.  That did catch my eye.
   Times they are a'changing.