ObergefellvHodges576USdocxWord文档下载推荐.docx

ObergefellvHodges576USdocxWord文档下载推荐.docx

《ObergefellvHodges576USdocxWord文档下载推荐.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ObergefellvHodges576USdocxWord文档下载推荐.docx（19页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

VALERIATANCO,etal.,PETITIONERS14–562v.

BILLHASLAM,GOVERNOROFTENNESSEE,etal.;

APRILDeBOER,etal.,PETITIONERS

14–571v.

RICKSNYDER,GOVERNOROFMICHIGAN,etal.;

ANDGREGORYBOURKE,etal.,PETITIONERS14–574v.

STEVEBESHEAR,GOVERNOROFKENTUCKY

onwritsofcertioraritotheunitedstatescourtofappealsforthesixthcircuit

[June26,2015]

JusticeScalia,withwhomJusticeThomasjoins,

dissenting.

IjoinTheChiefJustice

’sopinioninfull.Iwriteseparatelyto

callattentiontothisCourt

’sthreattoAmericandemocracy.

Thesubstanceoftoday

’sdecreeisnotofimmense

personalimportancetome.Thelawcanrecognizeas

marriagewhateversexualattachmentsandliving

arrangementsitwishes,andcanaccordthemfavorable

civilconsequences,fromtaxtreatmenttorightsof

inheritance.Thosecivilconsequences

—andthepublic

approvalthatconferringthenameofmarriage

evidences—canperhapshaveadversesocialeffects,but

nomoreadversethantheeffectsofmanyother

controversiallaws.Soitisnotofspecialimportancetome

whatthelawsaysaboutmarriage.Itisofoverwhelming

importance,however,whoitisthatrulesme.Today

’s

decreesaysthatmyRuler,andtheRulerof320million

Americanscoast-to-coast,isamajorityoftheninelawyers

ontheSupremeCourt.Theopinioninthesecasesisthe

furthestextensioninfact

—andthefurthestextensionone

canevenimagine—oftheCourt

’sclaimedpowertocreate

“liberties”thattheConstitutionanditsAmendmentsneglecttomention.Thispracticeofconstitutionalrevisionbyanunelectedcommitteeofnine,alwaysaccompanied（asitistoday）byextravagantpraiseofliberty,robsthePeopleofthemostimportantlibertytheyassertedintheDeclarationofIndependenceandwonintheRevolutionof1776:

thefreedomtogovernthemselves.

I

Untilthecourtsputastoptoit,publicdebateoversame-sexmarriagedisplayedAmericandemocracyatitsbest.Individualsonbothsidesoftheissuepassionately,butrespectfully,attemptedtopersuadetheirfellowcitizenstoaccepttheirviews.Americansconsideredtheargumentsandputthequestiontoavote.Theelectoratesof11States,eitherdirectlyorthroughtheirrepresentatives,chosetoexpandthetraditionaldefinitionofmarriage.Manymoredecidednotto.[1]Winorlose,advocatesforbothsidescontinuedpressingtheircases,secureintheknowledgethatanelectorallosscanbenegatedbyalaterelectoralwin.Thatisexactlyhowoursystemofgovernmentissupposedtowork.[2]

TheConstitutionplacessomeconstraintson

self-rule—constraintsadoptedbythePeoplethemselves

whentheyratifiedtheConstitutionanditsAmendments.

Forbiddenarelaws

“impairingtheObligationof

Contracts,”[3]denying

“FullFaithandCredit

”tothe

“pu

Acts”ofotherStates,[4]prohibitingthefreeexerciseof

religion,[5]abridgingthefreedomofspeech,[6]infringing

therighttokeepandbeararms,[7]authorizing

unreasonablesearchesandseizures,[8]andsoforth.

Asidefromtheselimitations,thosepowers

“reservedtothe

Statesrespectively,ortothepeople

”[9]canbeexercised

astheStatesorthePeopledesire.Thesecasesaskusto

decidewhetherthe

FourteenthAmendmentcontainsalimitationthatrequires

theStatestolicenseandrecognizemarriagesbetween

twopeopleofthesamesex.Doesitremovethatissue

fromthepoliticalprocess?

Ofcoursenot.Itwouldbesurprisingtofindaprescription

regardingmarriageintheFederalConstitutionsince,as

theauthoroftoday

’sopinionremindedusonlytwoyears

ago（inanopinionjoinedbythesameJusticeswhojoin

himtoday）:

“[R]egulationofdomesticrelationsisanareathathaslong

beenregardedasavirtuallyexclusiveprovinceoftheStates.”[10]

“[T]heFederalGovernment,throughourhistory,hasdeferredtostate-lawpolicydecisionswithrespectto

domesticrelations.

”][11

Butweneednotspeculate.Whenthe

FourteenthAmendmentwasratifiedin1868,everyStatelimitedmarriagetoonemanandonewoman,andnoonedoubtedtheconstitutionalityofdoingso.Thatresolvesthesecases.Whenitcomestodeterminingthemeaningof

avagueconstitutionalprovision—suchas“dueprocessof

law”or“equalprotectionofthelawsitisunquestionable”—thatthePeoplewhoratifiedthatprovisiondidnotunderstandittoprohibitapracticethatremainedbothuniversalanduncontroversialintheyearsafterratification.[12]WehavenobasisforstrikingdownapracticethatisnotexpresslyprohibitedbytheFourteenthAmendment’stext,andthatbearstheendorsementofalongtraditionofopen,widespread,and

unchallengedusedatingbacktotheAmendment’sratification.SincethereisnodoubtwhateverthatthePeopleneverdecidedtoprohibitthelimitationofmarriage

toopposite-sexcouples,thepublicdebateoversame-sex

marriagemustbeallowedtocontinue.

ButtheCourtendsthisdebate,inanopinionlackingeven

athinveneeroflaw.Buriedbeneaththemummeriesand

straining-to-be-memorablepassagesoftheopinionisa

candidandstartlingassertion:

Nomatterwhatitwasthe

Peopleratified,the

FourteenthAmendmentprotectsthoserightsthatthe

Judiciary,inits

“reasonedjudgment,”thinksthe

FourteenthAmendmentoughttoprotect.[13]Thatisso

because“[t]hegenerationsthatwroteandratifiedtheBillof

Rightsandthe

FourteenthAmendmentdidnotpresumetoknowthe

extentoffreedominallofitsdimensions....

”[14]One

wouldthinkthatsentencewouldcontinue:

“...and

thereforetheyprovidedforameansbywhichthePeople

couldamendtheConstitution,

”orperhaps

thereforetheyleftthecreationofadditionalliberties,such

asthefreedomtomarrysomeoneofthesamesex,tothe

People,throughthenever-endingprocessoflegislation.

”

Butno.Whatlogicallyfollows,inthemajority

judge-empoweringestimation,is:

“andsotheyentrustedto

futuregenerationsacharterprotectingtherightofall

personstoenjoylibertyaswelearnitsmeaning.

”[15]The

“we,”needlesstosay,isthenineofus.

“Historyand

traditionguideanddiscipline[our]inquirybutdonotsetits

outerboundaries.

”[16]Thus,ratherthanfocusingonthe

People’sunderstandingof

“liberatythe”time—of

ratificationoreventoday—themajorityfocusesonfour

“principlesandtraditions

”that,inthemajority

’sview,

prohibitStatesfromdefiningmarriageasaninstitution

consistingofonemanandonewoman.[17]

Thisisanakedjudicialclaimtolegislative

—indeed,

super-legislative—power;

aclaimfundamentallyatodds

withoursystemofgovernment.Exceptaslimitedbya

constitutionalprohibitionagreedtobythePeople,the

Statesarefreetoadoptwhateverlawstheylike,even

thosethatoffendtheesteemedJustices

’“reasoned

judgment.”AsystemofgovernmentthatmakesthePeoplesubordinatetoacommitteeofnineunelectedlawyersdoesnotdeservetobecalledademocracy.

Judgesareselectedpreciselyfortheirskillaslawyers;

whethertheyreflectthepolicyviewsofaparticularconstituencyisnot（orshouldnotbe）relevant.Not

surprisinglythen,theFederalJudiciaryishardlyacross-sectionofAmerica.Take,forexample,thisCourt,whichconsistsofonlyninemenandwomen,allofthemsuccessfullawyers[18]whostudiedatHarvardorYaleLawSchool.FouroftheninearenativesofNewYorkCity.Eightofthemgrewupineast-andwest-coastStates.Onlyonehailsfromthevastexpansein-between.NotasingleSouthwesterneroreven,totellthetruth,agenuineWesterner（Californiadoesnotcount）.NotasingleevangelicalChristian（agroupthatcomprisesaboutonequarterofAmericans[19]）,orevenaProtestantofanydenomination.Thestrikinglyunrepresentativecharacterof

thebodyvotingontoday’ssocialupheavalwouldbe

irrelevantiftheywerefunctioningasjudges,answeringthe

legalquestionwhethertheAmericanpeoplehadeverratifiedaconstitutionalprovisionthatwasunderstoodtoproscribethetraditionaldefinitionofmarriage.Butof

coursetheJusticesintoday’smajorityarenotvotingon

thatbasis;

theysaytheyarenot.Andtoallowthepolicyquestionofsame-sexmarriagetobeconsideredandresolvedbyaselect,patrician,highlyunrepresentativepanelofnineistoviolateaprincipleevenmore

fundamentalthannotaxationwithoutrepresentation:

nosocialtransformationwithoutrepresentation.

II

Butwhatreallyastoundsisthehubris

reflectedintoday

judicialPutsch.ThefiveJusticeswhocomposetoday

majorityareentirelycomfortableconcludingthatevery

StateviolatedtheConstitutionforallofthe135years

betweenthe

FourteenthAmendment

’sratificationandMassachusetts

’

permittingofsame-sexmarriagesin2003.[20]Theyhave

discoveredinthe

FourteenthAmendm