So what am I to say–that Burton is a hefty factor in this discussion?
That’s true for sure.
Unfortunately, there are only three conservatives (originalists) on the Supreme Court. The other six are happy to just make up the law as they go along, to achieve the outcome they desire.
Originalism is simply honesty: nothing more, nothing less. It means telling the truth about the meaning of the Constitution and laws. The Framers of the Constitution called it “indispensable in the courts of justice.” (Federalist No. 78)
“The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.”
– Federalist No. 78
Unfortunately, there’s nothing new about jurists lying about the Constitution to substitute their personal will for legitimate, democratically enacted law. Obergefell v. Hodges is only the latest blatantly dishonest SCOTUS decision. It’s just Brennan’s infamous “Rule of Five” put into practice, again.
Judicial activism has a long and disastrous history of subverting democracy, and rending the fabric of American society. They do it because they are dishonest and they can get away with it.
The Framers believed that such misbehavior would and should result in the impeachment of the dishonest jurists (Federalist No. 81), but in practice it doesn’t. It turns out that Congress has no stomach for impeachment. Again and again corrupt activist Justices have subverted democracy to impose their will. In Dred Scott, Wickard v. Filburn, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schempp, Lawrence v. Texas, and many more cases, they’ve gotten away with it, and the consequences have been catastrophic.
Consider the impact of Dred Scott: some 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War, which the Dred Scott decision helped to trigger. (Ref: http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/original.html )
Consider the impact of Roe: One quarter of all babies conceived in the United States now die by “choice.” (And Roe, BTW, is based on the same very same oxymoronic legal fiction that Justice Taney invented for his appalling Dred Scott decision: “constructive due process.”)
Consider the impact of Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schemp (ending school prayer): American families are collapsing. 41% of babies born in American are now born out of wedlock, and half of the fortunate others who are born to married parents experience the divorce of those parents by the time they reach adulthood.
The combined impact of those disasters is catastrophe. 0.75 x 0.59 x 0.5 = 0.22125, which means that a baby conceived in America today has only about 22% chance of growing up in a traditional home, with his own parents in an intact marriage.
The most tragic thing about this latest dishonest SCOTUS decision is the harm it will do to children who are adopted by NAMBLA couples like Frank Lombard & Kenneth Shipp, Mark Newton & Peter Truong, George Harasz & Douglas Wirth, etc., who adopt children for exploitation. (Ref: http://tinyurl.com/googlelombardshipp1 ) But in terms of sheer numbers of casualties, Obergefell v. Hodges will probably harm far fewer children than previous, equally dishonest SCOTUS decisions, like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schempp.