The Doom Trifecta

The last few days has brought us a trio of terrible Supreme Court decisions: King v. Burwell, Texas Dep’t of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Each of these decisions puts yet another hole in an already enervated Constitution. Burwell demonstrates that the Supreme Court has assumed the power to redraft legislation from the bench and to arbitrarily ascribe any meaning to any word and any concept. The Texas decision reinforces the foolish “disparate impact” standard concocted in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. extending its application to the Fair Housing Act, effectively assuming the power to determine how and where individuals live, and the racial composition of neighborhoods. Obergefell constitutes the effective federalization of marriage, a power traditionally within the purview of the states. The federal government-with the help of its judicial handmaiden-is becoming a juggernaut that is flattening individual rights and state sovereignty. The totalitarian future draws nigh.

I laugh at those who celebrate these decisions as heralding a new era of tolerance, as these decisions are nothing of the sort. What these decisions signify is the official beginning of the decline. They usher in a new era of federal overreach. They are portents of a future that will be less free, less promising, and more degenerate than useful idiots could ever imagine.



      1. The world is hardly coming to an end and the SCOTUS opinions aren’t evidence of that. The sky is not falling and not one person’s religious rights, freedoms, or liberty has been damaged by even the slightest measure. If one’s religions convictions do not allow accepting marriage equality then nothing has changed because nothing about the ruling could be reasonably interpreted as requiring private acceptance of same sex marriage. The ACA decision is rooted in principles of statutory interpretation and construction. Words retain their meaning and the Supreme Court is not overreaching in simply saying what the law is.


      2. My concern is not as simplistic as “the world coming to an end.” You can read that I used the words “decline” and “overreach,” terms which I believe accurately describe the nature of these decisions and where they will ultimately lead. Religion is not at issue here either; that’s a straw man that you opted to introduce for reasons unclear to me. My argument is a federalist one. Marriage is a state issue, thus gay marriage issue is not a federal question. As such, it would have been properly determined at the state level.

        The litigated language in the ACA case was unambiguous and the Court should have adopted a plain meaning interpretation in this instance. “State” means “state,” not “state or federal.” So in this case, SCOTUS was not interpreting law, it was making law.


      3. States are still free to regulate marriage. States can decide to just not issue any marriage license anymore, they can set age limits, tax benefits, waiting periods for licenses, whether to allow common law marriages and durations for that, prevent incest or bigamy, regulate intestacy and inheritance, spousal privileges and much more. The only thing the ruling alters is a state’ ability to exclude willing participants from the institution of marriage because they are the same gender. Marriage remains exactly no more or less a state issue than it was since Loving was decided. As to the ACA, the court is required to interpret words in a statute according to well-established maxims of interpretation and construction. Words are given their plain meaning unless doing so is clearly not what the legislature intended or would obviously frustrate the purpose of he statute. The purpose of the statute was to expand healthcare coverage and make it affordable. That is what congress clearly intended. To require otherwise would also require interpreting the statute in an unnatural way that would frustrate it’s clear purpose. It would require reading it to mean that the individual mandate to have insurance would not be satisfied by purchasing insurance from the federal exchange because the mandate requires people to get insurance from exchanges set up by the state. There the use of “state” has to contemplate the federal government run exchanged or the whole thing makes no sense. Context and congressional intent should and did govern this kind of analysis. The Court applied the correct analysis and reached it’s conclusion and did so in a way that doesn’t run afoul of federalist principles.


      4. It’s fine to have an opinion to he contrary but the rampant hyperbole and gross oversimplification and exaggeration of the law, scope, and effects of these rulings really diminishes the credibility.


    1. By all means do and I would never wish otherwise. Just understand that in the ACA case the justices were not bound to interpret only the small section containing one usage of the word “state” but are free to interpret the language in its proper context. That is how statutory construction and interpretation works. Interpreting a controversial statute in an uncontroversial way doesn’t equate to judicial legislation.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s