Our Robed Rulers

“If the justices are going to do politics, they should be in electoral politics. If John Roberts is going to write laws on the days when he isn’t posing as powerless to write laws, if Anthony Kennedy truly believes the country craves his eccentric notion of liberty (one that condemns government restraints on marriage 24 hours after it tightens government’s noose around one-sixth of the U.S. economy), then their seats should not be in an insulated third branch of government. They should be in an accountable third chamber of Congress.”

Should be, sure. But issuing edicts is so much easier than compromising, gathering support, and counting votes. You can’t expect Kennedy, our “wise Latina,” & their two liberal cronies to do the heavy lifting.

There is a Consitutional remedy for these outlaws, as our own Ted Cruz points out, but it would require more consensus in Congress and the States than there is likely to be. Too many people like being told what to do. Or, maybe, just maybe, this will be the last straw:

“Surely it’s an unusual civil rights victory that disenfranchises the people of all 50 states on a critical issue. After a mere decade of political debate on the topic of same-sex marriage, the voters have been told that our opinions are no longer needed. Justice Kennedy will tell us what we think.”

Via NRO & Ricochet

2 responses to “Our Robed Rulers

  1. Hm… the other side of the same coin. Yes, too much of judicial activism vs too little. The balance is never to be fixed.

  2. Mrs. C., who as you known is of the liberal persuasion, says it’s a civil rights matter. I must admit there are parallels with the end-of-segregation civil rights laws. Fifty states were disenfranchised there, too, forced to give blacks equal rights whether they liked it or not. Although I don’t suppose there will be any busing this time, bringing soon-to-be-married gays into places that don’t have any.