You have completely lost your intellectual integrity now.
Gee, thanks. And you've descended to personal insults. How exactly do you expect me to respond to this?
You can't be intellectually honest and one minute say that a legislature shouldn't be passing an unconstitutional law (that's pro-same-sex marriage) and then the next minute say that it's okay for a legislature to pass an unconstitutional law that's anti-abortion because the Supreme Court may overturn it.
I'm not saying it's OK for a legislature to pass an unconstitutional law, I'm explicitly saying that state laws against abortion are not unconstitutional. That a passing majority on the Supreme Court thinks otherwise is merely a practical hindrance to enforcement.
The constitution means what it means, and that doesn't change according to the whims of the Supreme Court. The court's job is to do its best to understand the constitution; sometimes it succeeds in this job, and sometimes it fails, but whether it succeeds or fails doesn't change what the actual constitution means. A law that contradicts the constitution is unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court mistakenly allows it to be enforced, and a law that does not fall afoul of the consitution is constitutional, even if the Court mistakenly refuses to enforce it.
Many constitutional provisions are sufficiently vague that honest people can hold different opinions about what they actually mean, when applied to a given case. Other questions are perfectly clear, and no honest person could come to a different conclusion. But there are judges sitting on the bench, both on state and federal courts, who don't care what a law actually means; they imagine that they have the power to make it mean whatever they want, and to ignore what a law says in favour of whatever they think it ought to say. Such judges, when they hand down decisions that they know are wrong, act ultra vires, and if there were a foolproof, objective way to single out such judges they ought to be removed from office and their decisions ignored. Unfortunately, I don't think such a way exists, and shortcuts to get around that would probably cause more harm than they would cure. But that's a prudential consideration, and doesn't change the underlying truth.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-12 04:49 am (UTC)The constitution means what it means, and that doesn't change according to the whims of the Supreme Court. The court's job is to do its best to understand the constitution; sometimes it succeeds in this job, and sometimes it fails, but whether it succeeds or fails doesn't change what the actual constitution means. A law that contradicts the constitution is unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court mistakenly allows it to be enforced, and a law that does not fall afoul of the consitution is constitutional, even if the Court mistakenly refuses to enforce it.
Many constitutional provisions are sufficiently vague that honest people can hold different opinions about what they actually mean, when applied to a given case. Other questions are perfectly clear, and no honest person could come to a different conclusion. But there are judges sitting on the bench, both on state and federal courts, who don't care what a law actually means; they imagine that they have the power to make it mean whatever they want, and to ignore what a law says in favour of whatever they think it ought to say. Such judges, when they hand down decisions that they know are wrong, act ultra vires, and if there were a foolproof, objective way to single out such judges they ought to be removed from office and their decisions ignored. Unfortunately, I don't think such a way exists, and shortcuts to get around that would probably cause more harm than they would cure. But that's a prudential consideration, and doesn't change the underlying truth.
This has gone on way too long already.