Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon
The Supreme court decided (actually one Justice Kennedy) and not "we the people "and it therefore remains unsettled in many citizens minds, again as did roe V Wade. The consequences will of that move by the court are yet to unfold. You can judge issues such as this by who spoke up because most won't.
|
Our country was founded as a nation of laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court operates on the basis of constitutional structure. Those of us who focus so much on "strict interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution must be very, very conscious of this. It is my understanding that court decisions are made based on majority, as is appropriate for the democracy that we are. Hence, even though one Justice undertakes the responsibility of writing the majority opinion, he or she is not responsible for the decision itself; he or she was just one vote in making that decision.
Speaking of democracy, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited and toured our fledgling nation in the 1830s, one of the things he noted was what he referred to as "the tyranny of the majority," meaning that the minority (i.e. in some instances, "minorities" [plural]) were forced by democracy, so to speak, to live with the effects of votes by the majority. This can be particularly appreciated when one is on the losing end of an election, as an example. Anytime is a good time to pick up de Tocqueville's seminal work
(Democracy in America) and re-read it, as it is always timely.
I'm in complete agreement with the statement about "who spoke up because most won't." And that "won't" so often means "not be bothered." Sad when you think about it. This is why when an elected official receives a letter (yes, some of us still write letters!) expressing a view on a subject, that official considers that the letter represents hundreds of constituents, perhaps thousands, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands.