5:4, of course

[james_davis_nicoll]

Bare majority of US Supreme drags US kicking and screaming into the Century of the Anchovy.

Comments

[kithrup.livejournal.com]

Roberts isn't much better:

Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"Because that's how Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board worked. Yeah. Really. That's the ticket."

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

It's desperately important to pretend everyone involved is reasonable, fair, and kind. If you stop pretending that you have to admit what's actually going on, who it benefits, and that the pile of corpses isn't an accidental side effect of vague impersonal forces.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

That is an awesome comment. Are you by any chance familiar with Ian Welsh? He says stuff like this frequently. Y'all are both absolutely correct.

[bruce munro (from livejournal.com)]

Haven't you heard? Racism is just something made up by the media!

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Somebody pointed out that earlier this week Roberts insisted that "the state" refers to any governing body, on either the state or federal level, and today he's insisting that that conflation would be bad. I keep hearing that he's clever, quiet, and playing a long game, but it's also possible that he's just making stuff up as he goes along.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I haven't read his opinion, but from the paragraph quoted, I'd guess he's not conflating state and federal, he's comparing judicial to legislative branches, and saying it'd be better for gay marriage to win legitimacy in the legislatures and populace, not be imposed by the courts.

Obama's favorite legal scholar, Cass Sunstein, is a judicial minimalist with similar views, I'm told. I think the warning example would be Roe vs. Wade, still fought heavily because abortion rights are pretty unpopular.

People talk about the courts protecting minorities from a majority, but if the majority really has it in, that won't work well. Arguably the courts work best when they clear away legal cruft that the majority hasn't gotten around to yet -- which given the rapid change in public opinion on gay marriage, seems to actually apply here.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

I actually did see an article that argued "the Supreme Court got it wrong again, just as it did years ago with Roe vs. Wade." It's not clear if they honestly forgot Loving vs. Virginia or if they thought that wouldn't be wise to bring up.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Aye. The Supreme Court is pretty famous for only making controversial changes when a strong public approval wind is at their back. I seem to recall reading a few opinions/dissents (I forget which) way back when that argued the court's legitimacy depended on not pissing off the masses too much. Gah. At least they (at last) got this one right.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

In this instance, I agree. While I am absolutely delighted that marriage is now not dependent on orientation, I would be happier if (when) it happened via the legislatures rather than the judiciary.

And yes, Roe is the cautionary tale. A substantial portion of pro-lifers wish Roe hadn't happened when it did, because it cut off the debate that was moving in the pro-life direction.