Lewis v. Harris, cont'd., conclusion

Check out Robin Lenhardt on Blackprof for the last word on Lewis.
Scotus understands he will be sent to the dog house for gnawing so obsessively on this one decision by a state supreme court.
Scotus cannot let go just yet.
Prof. Lendardt:
*Argues the fundamental similarity of the majority's holding in Lewis and the notorious antimiscegenation laws of Jim Crow days;
*Forecasts "the creation of a separate-but-equal system for marriage" in New Jersey, if the legislature follows the path mapped out by the majority, and implicitly critiques Connecticut's and Vermont's "2-tiered" systems for marriage benefits;
*De-bunks the specious "welfare of children" reasoning of such decisions as last summer's Hernandez v. Robles, in which the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, held that the state constitution didn't require same-sex marriages;
* Praises the now-retired chief justice, whom Scotus blogged about last week, for arguing in her concurring and dissenting opinion that the majority had authorized a view of same-sex commitments as "lesser relationships" which "cannot have the name of marriage."
Scotus knows he will not get a treat at least until he blogs about what the 11th Circuit did in the Cuba 5 case.
Scotus also says look at The Continental Op's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" - on whether the S.Ct. will grant cert. in Juneau School Bd. v. Frederick. Co-starring Ken Starr!

Comments

[TallSkinny]

We shouldn't be too hard on the courts. They are under siege, both by Republican attacks, and by implementation of reactionary ideology through the appointment process. In the current climate, this decision is worth celebrating.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has a long and demonstrated history of commitment to progressive values. That it felt obliged to split the baby in this case says more about a judiciary under siege than it does about the court's commitment to progressive values.

I grew up in a time when courts took the lead in implementing progressive values.
But 20 years of judge-bashing and court-packing have ended that era.

Let's face facts. We can no longer rely on the courts to implement our values. We have to look to the elected branches. That sucks. But it's got an upside.

We can no longer sit on our butts and do nothing to change electoral politics, safe in the knowledge that the courts will protect us. Progressive judicial activism made us lazy.

If we want to ensure equal rights for LGBTs, we have to do the dirty work of getting people out to vote for our values, and persuading people that our values are right.

[pscimo]

Scotus replies:
Woof!
Scotus blogged at length on this decision starting the night it came out, GS, not just here. Scotus gave the 4:3 minority their due, as well as basic props to the majority holding.

[pscimo]

Stein replies:
Scotus can speak (not really) for himself, but I wanted to address GS's opening comment. I definitely agree that progressives should avoid heaping scorn on the judiciary, and that this should be a basic principle.
Attacking the judiciary historically is a faux-populist organizing tactic of the right, especially the white supremacist right.
In the current moment, attacks on the judiciary as a coequal branch of government represent strategy at the highest level of the Bush administration.
On the other hand, encouraging legal literacy among laypeople by blogging about the limitations of particular court opinions helps bring people into intellectual engagement with governance, including mis-governance (such as legalized homophobia).