But more to the point, suppose that in less than another four years Hillary is elected president. How the heck will the Supreme Court be able to uphold the "sanctity" of Hillary and Bill's farcical union, yet deny gay people the right to be married?
Back to Dowd's opinion piece. Savaging the Supreme Court's reluctance to tackle the issue, Maureen quotes Justice Alito:
"'Same-sex marriage is very new,' Justice Samuel Alito whinged, noting that 'it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing.' If the standard is that marriage always has to be 'a good thing,' would heterosexuals pass?
'But you want us to step in and render a decision,' Alito continued, 'based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future.'"
Now I'm not about to get my underpants in a knot over Justice Alito's musings, but I didn't realize it was the function of the Supreme Court to determine whether something is "good" or "new." I thought it was the Supreme Court's job to decide whether a practice or course of conduct is "legal." But more on this later.
Dowd continues:
"Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy grumbled about 'uncharted waters,' and the fuddy-duddies seemed to be looking for excuses not to make a sweeping ruling. Their questions reflected a unanimous craven impulse: How do we get out of this? This court is plenty bold imposing bad decisions on the country, like anointing W. president or allowing unlimited money to flow covertly into campaigns."
Or upholding the legality of Obamacare.
Which brings me to my point. Dowd concludes, "If this court doesn’t reject bigotry, history will reject this court." "History will reject this court"? Before getting hysterical, Maureen, let's first allow the Supreme Court to do its work.
In April 2012, in an opinion piece entitled "Men in Black" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/dowd-men-in-black.html), Dowd declared prior to the Supreme Court's ruling on the legality of Obamacare:
"This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.
It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes."
Of course, much to Dowd's embarrassment, the Court then upheld Obamacare.
You see, Maureen, no two people think alike. At the Supreme Court, no two justices think alike. Let them ask their questions, some of which - such as those of Justice Alito - may seem inapt to you or me. But let's also try to maintain our respect for the Supreme Court, which over the course of many years, has done a fairly good job of maintaining justice.
No matter how ardently I might oppose the opinion of any Supreme Court justice, I would never dream of labeling him or her a "hack" or a "coward." This lack of civility and basic respect for the opinions of others, threatens to tear apart the fabric of American society. If the Supreme Court's justices are "hacks" and "cowards," does this mean that each of us is free to take the law into his or her own hands? I shudder at the prospect.
And as long as we're on the subject of "cowardice," Dowd strangely fails to observe how reluctant her beloved "Barry" was to take a stand on the issue, and how he needed to be nudged by Vice President Biden.
Same-sex marriage will be upheld. A little patience and a bit less theatrics please, Maureen.
No comments:
Post a Comment