THE SUPREME COURT'S ARROGANCE in the Lawrence sodomy case is the subject of a good National Review piece by Jonathan Cohn.
Hence the great irony of the Supreme Court's decision: Morality was the only reason for holding that public morality is irrelevant to the constitutionality of a law. In effect, what the Court held was not that morality has no place in constitutional jurisprudence, but only that public morality is irrelevant. The justices' own morality is decisive. Morals laws such as prohibitions on bestiality, adult incest, polygamy, and, yes, gay marriage pass constitutional muster if, and only if, five Supreme Court justices say so. The Court's holding does not signal the end of morality, but merely the transfer of decision-making power.Scalia made a nice comment on this in his Lawrence dissent when he note that the members of the majority had no qualms about overruling Bowers v. Hardwick on homosexuality even though they had pled precedent as a reason not to overrule Roe v. Wade on abortion. The majority is both arrogant and deceitful.
REPUBLICAN SPINELESSNESS has again shown itself implicitly, in the lack of response to the Grutter affirmative action decision. Couldn't Congress pass a law banning racial discrimination that explicitly noted that affirmative action is also racial discrimination? It would be filibustered in the Senate, but the publicity along the way would help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats. But the Republicans have no guts.
[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.07.03a.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.