June 28, 2013
Supreme Court Decision on DOMA Raises Serious Questions About the Opinion’s Legitimacy
The 5-4 opinion by the Supreme Court on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the Court’s authority. History has proven that the Court does not always issue legitimate opinions.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote for the majority that while some states had granted citizenship to blacks, the U.S. Constitution did not recognize citizenship of blacks. This decision was illegitimate and is repudiated today.
In Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, described Charlottesville, Virginia, native Carrie Buck, whom he described as an “imbecile,” as the “probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted,” and he went on to say that “her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.” This decision was illegitimate and is repudiated today.
In Korematsu v. U.S., 324 U.S. 885 (1945), the Court upheld Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans to be herded into internment camps during World War II. Citizenship had no value to the Japanese. This decision, too, is illegitimate.
Justice O’Connor, writing in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 864-869 (1992), candidly acknowledged, “The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make. Thus, the Court’s legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation.”
The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act case has caused millions of Americans to lose confidence in the Court. The decision is as far removed from the Constitution and the Court’s prior precedent as the east is from the west. This decision does not even pretend to be governed by the Constitution or Court precedent. Although the Court used the words “equal protection,” the Court never engaged in an equal protection analysis. Not once did the Court identify the right sought by the petitioners. Not once did the Court ask whether the claimed right was protected, either by an enumerated provision of the Constitution or deeply rooted in history and necessary to ordered liberty. Not once did the Court seek to determine the level of judicial scrutiny the case should receive. In short, the opinion represents the personal views of five Justices and it finds no support in the Constitution or reason. As history has shown us, such decisions delegitimize the Court.
Read our news release for more details, and then head over to our Facebook page to let us know what you think.
Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk
Anyone who cares about the future of our society should read this book. Children are among those most affected by same-sex marriage. This book discusses the impact same-sex marriage has on the culture and gives you real answers to the central questions surrounding this important issue.
Read the book review and find ordering information or go directly to our online store at www.LC.org.
this Liberty Alert or
Join Freedom Federation and view us on
If you’d like to receive this information by email, please subscribe to our free Liberty Alert list.
Liberty Counsel does not charge clients for representation, so we depend on individuals, groups, and churches that care about advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the family. Liberty Counsel is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that accepts tax-deductible donations. Donate or order resources by calling Liberty Counsel at 800-671-1776.
Liberty Alert RSS Feed