In the morning
newspaper, syndicated columnist George Will, whom I regard as a vapid lunkhead
at best, titles his column:
“Candidates Unhinged.” Sad commentary when a conservative commentator takes his own
slate of candidates to task over “the changeable meaning of
words” when referring to language written in the Constitution. He presents the concept of 'judicial deference' – an argument put forth by John Roberts
that excuses 'inartful' language when the 'intent' of a legislature is clear.
In recent editorials
published by the Washington Post, various conservative writers regard the
SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage as an assault on democracy – invoking this
concept of judicial deference. Their
claim? Legislatures represent the 'will of the people' through their elected representatives, and any decision
that overturns laws written by legislators – meaning the manifest will of the
people -- is deemed undemocratic.
Bottom line: All matters of law are a popularity contest. Years ago, conservatives who disagreed
with a court decision groused with derision and scorn, regarding such decisions
as examples of 'judicial activism' and 'legislating
from the bench.' The
term 'judicial deference' is merely the latest iteration of a stale talking
point. In his dissenting opinion
on same-sex marriage, John Roberts hits the same sour note:
“Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Neither
history nor 'the changeable
meaning of words' supports his
view. The 'will of the people' has not justified slavery; nor the implementation of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws;
nor gender discrimination; nor any other form of bigotry and oppression. The
Constitution has everything to do with it, and the phrasing of the 14th
Amendment is clear:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equality under
law is not a popularity contest; state legislatures cannot pass laws that
abrogate civil rights and human rights; and a majority cannot suppress the
legitimate aspirations of any minority.
One might think a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, schooled and
experienced in law, can read simple words on a page without resorting to arcane
equivocation and sophistry.
The legal
controversy over same-sex marriage reminds me of an old joke. An accounting firm is hiring new
recruits. The qualifying exam
consists of one question: What
does two plus two equal? ‘Four’ is
not the correct answer. The winning
reply that lands the job: Two plus two is whatever you want it to be.
This suggests that, as I've been arguing, that the "language has to change" mantra has a dark side. Equivocation being so much easier when meanings are slippery. Considering the 2nd amendment, the lack of exclusivity in the "militia" argument is pivotal, but some inartfully assume it makes no difference.
ReplyDeleteJust as Evolution is often described as "survival of the fittest" in order to sell genocide, describing Democracy as the "will of the majority" is a way to sell injustice. We are, as everyone knows, a constitutional Republic designed with the objective of preventing mob rule. These tragically self-titled "Conservatives" are attempting to inflame the mob in the interests of tyranny and their own rule.
These people need to create an enemy they can defeat by rousing the rabble and I once again have to quote Tom Paine in referencing a man who rousing Italy to throw out Spanish rule, made himself king. Someone like Massinallo,
"who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, finally sweep away the liberties of the Continent like a delugefinally sweep away the liberties of the Continent like a deluge"
Rousing the mob against a bogus threat, like "the gay, or black or Jewish or Liberal, or Atheist agenda" eliminates the risk of losing and has no other objective than to put bad men in power.
In this controversy, I have steered clear of mischaracterizing people of faith. Some denominations condemn same-sex marriages; while others sanctify it by performing same-sex weddings. Bogus claims are a form of bullying and intimidation, especially this one: The "religious freedom" argument. When two distinct religious denominations -- both on opposite sides of an issue -- are in conflict with each other, there is only one authority. In this case, the Constitution and the wall of separation between church and state.
ReplyDeleteWhen "religious freedom" to one group means "intolerance and oppression" to another group, the deciding and over-riding factor is civil liberties, as stated in the 14th Amendment. Yet, Chief Justice Roberts thinks the Constitution does not apply. I find his argument absolutely astonishing when the words on a page are abundantly clear.
Another bogus argument: "Same-sex marriage dishonors the meaning of traditional marriage between a man and a woman." There are cheaters everywhere who dishonor this definition; yet one marriage has nothing to do with another marriage -- broken or open or otherwise. Couples define these relationships for themselves by themselves. Yet voyeurs, demagogues and aspiring despots have never respected privacy.
The authoritarian social-controlling mindset demands everyone to think like them, act like them, dress like them, stink like them, and vote like them. They are a joke that isn’t funny.
OT: I just received some heartbreaking news about Sheria Reid, a former Swash Zone contributor. She passed away, suddenly on July 1. (O)CT(O), I sent you an email.
ReplyDeleteOh my God. I'm devastated.
DeleteYes, we all are. Peace to her and to us who mourn her passing.
DeleteSheria was a powerful and peaceful person. She had an extraordinary writing talent. And she was a good bloggy pal. If memory serves, she had just embarked on a new life path not so long ago.
ReplyDelete