American constitutional jurisprudence, reducio ad absurdum

[Quantum Windbag]

This has been niggling at me for a while, but I really haven't been able to figure out why. It really is absurd that the Supreme Court of the United States is inserting itself into an area they are not equipped to handle. This is an issue that should be decided culturally, not legally.

But this observation would be too harsh. The Justices not only know whether their marriage worked, they also know whether their parents’ marriage worked, and may understand why the marriages they experienced and witnessed close-up worked or didn’t. In other words, they know as little about marriage as the rest of us.

So I’ll be content with this observation: The fact that the Supreme Court may be about to pass judgment on the age-old definition of marriage is the reductio ad absurdum of American constitutional jurisprudence. That we have reached this point tells us that the Supreme Court has taken some terribly wrong turns.

The fact that, until very recently, marriage has universally been deemed to require an opposite sex component doesn’t mean that this component must be required forevermore. But a decent appreciation of democracy, human history, and the fallibility of the individual means that nine glorified lawyers shouldn’t be the ones who make the change. Nor should they be in a position where they might make it.

The reducio ad absurdum of American constitutional jurisprudence | Power Line

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, well the lower courts have inserted themselves, so it's only natural that USSC would potentially be involved.

Lolberals lose the culture wars almost every time its issues are put to a vote, so their only way of wining the issues is to con the courts into their absurd claims.