Friday, April 03, 2009

The Poisoned Fruit of Justice Kennedy

In Lawrence, Anthony Kennedy drooled forth with a quote that shall live in infamy:

"Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct."

That obiter echoed what he had already posited in Casey--or in the words of Mohler:

From the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to the Lawrence v. Texas decision of 2003, the Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice of the Left in bringing about social and moral revolution. In his scathing dissent from the majority's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision amounted to nothing less than the end of all morals legislation in the United States of America. Given the specific arguments Justice Anthony Kennedy made in the majority opinion, no legislation based on morality would ever pass constitutional muster again. In one decision in the year 2003, the United States Supreme Court swept morality off the table of America's public life.

Mohler missed something even larger: no legislation based on the nature of man would ever pass constitutional muster again, either.

And it has come to pass that in Iowa, the fruit of the poisoned tree was applied again.

Today the Iowa supreme court ruled unanimously (7-0) that a “state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.” Amidst the opinion’s 69 pages of blather, there are two key assertions (and they’re nothing more than that):

(1) “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” (p. 16)

(2) “The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.” (pp. 16-17

Sometime down the track, historians will describe the 1960-2050 period of American history as 'the decline.' Citations of Gibbons will abound.


Jerome said...

Aaah, equal protection. Suppose that a judge says 'equal protection means that party A must get 70% of the pie, leaving the rest for party B'?

Oops, my bad. That is 'affirmative action', no? In that event, the judge is just decorating his whims with words, no?

Dave said...

I'm reading the two statements. Taken together, I read the summary as "Equal protection means whatever we say it means." The court could then use this definition to summarily throw out even a state constitutional amendment defining marriage, or whatever else they don't like.