ObergefellvHodges576USdocx.docx
《ObergefellvHodges576USdocx.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《ObergefellvHodges576USdocx.docx(19页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
ObergefellvHodges576USdocx
Obergefellv.Hodges
576U.S.
Syllabus
Opinion
(AnthonyM.Kennedy)
Dissent
(AntoninScalia)
Dissent
(JohnG.Roberts,Jr.)
Dissent
(ClarenceThomas)
Dissent
(SamuelA.Alito,Jr.)
SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
_________________
Nos.14–556,14-562,14-571and14–574
_________________
JAMESOBERGEFELL,etal.,PETITIONERS14–556v.
RICHARDHODGES,DIRECTOR,OHIODEPARTMENTOFHEALTH,etal.;
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
“...and
thereforetheyleftthecreationofadditionalliberties,such
asthefreedomtomarrysomeoneofthesamesex,tothe
People,throughthenever-endingprocessoflegislation.
”
Butno.Whatlogicallyfollows,inthemajority
’s
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
’s
judicialPutsch.ThefiveJusticeswhocomposetoday
’s
majorityareentirelycomfortableconcludingthatevery
StateviolatedtheConstitutionforallofthe135years
betweenthe
FourteenthAmendment
’sratificationandMassachusetts
’
permittingofsame-sexmarriagesin2003.[20]Theyhave
discoveredinthe
FourteenthAmendm