Interesting that in dissent, Roberts's it the most measured (celebrate the victory because it is the right thing but know that this has nothing to do with the Constitution according to me) and Scalia's, as ever, the most bitter (he called it something like fortune cookie nonsense) and Alito's response the most ill-formed (people who oppose SSM will be branded bigots, who will think of the persecuted Christian majority!).
These seem to reflect what we know of their personalities. Although I don't think "bitter" quite captures Scalia's opinion -- at one point in his opinion he calls the majority opinion a "judicial Putsch."
I mean, Roberts is more measured, but he also says that this ruling could be applied to polygamous marriages.
He does note, though, that the democratic process of debate/conversation/change were being interrupted with this decision.
Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of samesex marriage. They see voters carefully considering samesex
marriage, casting ballots in favor or opposed, and sometimes changing their minds. They see political leaders similarly reexamining their positions, and either reversing course or explaining adherence to old convictions confirmed anew. They see governments and businesses modifying policies and practices with respect to same-sex couples, and participating actively in the civic discourse. They see countries overseas democratically accepting profound social change, or declining to do so. This deliberative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.
When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know
that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.
While I find this a really moving argument, I also want to call bullshit. What makes the Ireland vote so moving is not only that people journeyed from all over to have their say, but because it was unusual to have rights extended via ballot.
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.
But I don't need full acceptance from people. I need legal acceptance.
Sparky, I haven't read Scalia's yet. I really enjoy Roberts because even when he holds positions I disagree with, I like the force of his thinking.
How much self-control do you think it took for Ginsberg not to write a separate opinion simply reading "Ha ha u mad"?
Yup. Legal acceptance often precedes true acceptance, at least in the US.
In reading Scalia's dissent, I just want to shake him.
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.
Oh that wasn't true when the Supreme Court seated a President who wasn't elected in Bush v. Gore?
More Scalia:
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant.
Good thing he put that parenthetical in. Does he really think Thomas was selected for his skill as a lawyer and not his policy stances? Or that he was?
