Tuesday, June 19 , 2018, 6:40 am | Fair 53º

 
 
 

David Sirota: The Supreme Court’s Radical New Precedent

Out of all the newsworthy comments during this week’s Supreme Court debate over the legality of same-sex marriage bans, none was more revealing — or troubling — than that which came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Before pointing out that “we let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years from 1898 to 1954,” she asked: “If the issue is letting the states experiment (with same-sex marriage bans) and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” The question embodied much of the sentiment of other justices, leading the New York Times to summarize the hearing with the headline: “Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case.”

Three theories are at work in this line of reasoning: 1) The judiciary has an obligation to make sure its rulings reflect public opinion, 2) judges should always avoid rulings that conflict with public opinion, and 3) the Supreme Court should not immediately strike down laws violating the Constitution’s equal protection precepts because state fights over those statutes allegedly help the public reach consensus on those underlying issues.

Though Sotomayor’s logic appears reasonable at first glance, it isn’t. First and foremost, it is wrong for anybody to refer to a half-century of uninterrupted segregation as anything but awful, regardless of whether the struggle against such bigotry ultimately moved public opinion in the right direction. Additionally, the deeper jurisprudential principle being forwarded is distasteful. It radically reimagines the American judiciary as a mere validator of majority public opinion.

That, of course, is not what the judiciary is supposed to be. Elected legislators are charged with representing the public will in matters of legislation. But in the words of Alexander Hamilton, judges are appointed — and not elected — to a separate branch of government in order to ensure that their rulings do not represent the fleeting whims of public opinion and instead represent nothing “but the Constitution and the laws.”

This is particularly important when it comes to civil rights fights over atrocities such as same-sex marriage bans — that is, bans denying the same legal protections for LGBT couples that are granted to heterosexual couples.

In adjudicating such cases, judges are supposed to prevent a tyranny of the majority from trampling the constitutional rights of minorities. As they did in the Loving vs. Virginia case overturning bans on interracial marriage, justices are supposed to uphold the Constitution even if public opinion doesn’t support them doing so. That can only happen if judges are ruling exclusively on the constitutionality of discrimination — and not on whether such discrimination happens to be supported by the majority of citizens.

Sotomayor and her fellow justices seem to be saying the opposite — they seem to be making the radical claim that the public might not be ready for a sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage bans. That is a radical notion because those judges are insinuating that constitutional questions about equal protection should be less important than subjective questions about the current public mood.

But that’s the thing — while politics and the public shift, the right to equal protection under the law is supposed to be immutable. That right is either being protected or being violated. Indeed, the whole genius of the Founders’ creation of an independent judiciary is the recognition of that fundamental truth — and the corollary recognition that there is never a “right time” or a “wrong time” to uphold the Constitution.

Should this Supreme Court declare otherwise by refusing to strike down same-sex marriage bans, it will set a dangerous precedent that constitutionality is now a matter of how the court perceives popular opinion rather than whether America is respecting all of its citizens’ inalienable rights.

David Sirota is the best-selling author of Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now and blogs at OpenLeft.com. Contact him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), follow him on Twitter: @davidsirota, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >