Mar 26, 2013

From a commenter on TPM:

subzeroepsilon  sdpt45  3 hours ago

The Supreme Court does know this, or at least they used to. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court wrote:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.319 U.S. 624 (at 639).


This is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  The minority's rights must be protected from a possibly wrong and tyrannical majority.


(After reading about oral arguments, I am starting to believe the Supremes might not grant standing, and Prop 8 would be overturned in California.  The villains would try again in court, I am sure.)

Meanwhile, North Dakota just had their Governor sign three disgusting anti-choice bills in to law today.  Those will be tested in the courts, too.  And not even this SCOTUS would find them Constitutional.


No comments:

Post a Comment