Why do Liberals attribute moral/ethical superiority to the Supreme Court?
During seemingly every debate regarding California’s Proposition 8, Liberals have attempted to console themselves by claiming that “the Supreme Court will overturn it anyway…”
Statements like these show a blatant disregard and disdain for the vast majority of California voters who passed Prop 8 to amend the California Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Furthermore, this sentiment also shows that these same Liberals believe that the Supreme Court, which is nothing more then a committee of nine people, has the right to overturn the clear vote of the people and the very Constitution the court is allegedly supposed to be enforcing. The only way these Liberals could logically justify the belief that nine individuals are somehow entitled to overturn the clear vote of the people would be to claim that these nine people are somehow superior to the “average people” who actually accomplish things in their “everyday” lives (as opposed to judges who accomplish nothing in their entire lives).
Since the whole “all men are created equal” bit was written by the gun-owning conservative Thomas Jefferson, it would appear as though I must use another tactic to convince Liberals that no person, or group of nine persons are superior to any other nor does any such group have the right to overturn a self governing majority.
Perhaps a look as the Supreme Courts record will convince Liberals that this organization could hardly be considered a morally or ethically superior body;
In 1857, the Supreme Court decided that Blacks lacked human rights (Dredd Scott v. Sandford).
In 1896, the Supreme Court decided that Blacks, who had just had a portion of their God-given rights recognized by the American people (not the Court), lacked civil rights (Plessy v. Ferguson).
In 1944, the Supreme Court decided that Asians lacked basic civil rights and that their detention by the Liberal President FDR was Constitutional (Korematsu v. United States)
In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that children lacked human rights (Jane Roe, et. Al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County)
In 1978, the Supreme Court decided that Whites lacked civil rights (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)
Finally, in 2005, the Supreme Court, which contained eight out of its current nine justices decided that all Americans lack the right to own property (Susette Kelo, et. Al. v. City of New London).
Even if those who believe that the Supreme Court is some form of morally/ethically superior arbiter whish to cite the “decent” decisions the Court has reached, or even cite the fact that a portion of these cases have since been overturned, the mere fact that the Court has, over the years, made this many poor decisions, which have had such a severe negative impact on American society would seem to destroy any claim the Supreme Court might have of being morally/ethically superior to the American people and thus destroy the basis of the Courts justification for overturning legislation passed by the American people (who, unlike the Court, do not have a 200 year history of poor decision making).
Based on the Courts history of poor decision making, and the anti-democratic nature inherent in allowing an unelected body of nine people to overturn the legislative acts of the majority, how many of you still believe that the Supreme Court (or any state supreme court) should be allowed to use its power to overturn legislation passed by a clear majority of the people???
MCCORMICK
