Commenting on oral arguments made to the Supreme Court today concerning gay marriage, Paul Mirengoff of Power Line Blog dismisses the Court’s involvement altogether. Mirengoff writes “(N)ine glorified lawyers shouldn’t be the ones who make the change. Nor should they be in a position where they might make it.”
Mark Steyn endorsed Mirgenoff’s observation by citing a bit he wrote on the subject several weeks ago:
An institution that predates the United States by several millenia will be defined for a third of a billion people by whichever way Anthony Kennedy feels like swingin’ that morning.
I wonder though if Mirgenoff or Steyn would have uttered those thoughts if they believed the Court would rule against gay marriage.
Let’s keep in mind that at this time a year ago, conservatives weren’t calling the Supremes “nine glorified lawyers” when it was thought Obamacare would be overturned.
I also recall that conservatives didn’t particularly like it when President Obama ripped the Supreme Court to their faces over the Citizen United decision during the 2010 SOTU. Samuel Alito wasn’t deemed a glorified lawyer when he responded to Obama’s comments with the words “not true”.
Look, the Supreme Court has made some questionable decisions over the years. But let’s not pillory the Court for a decision it has not yet rendered.
Like it or not, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of our system of government. Our highest court doesn’t deserve to be dismissed as “nine glorified lawyers” because it might make a decision with which we don’t agree.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.