Judicial restraint: I have to say I didn't expect this at all.
This marks the second time in as many days (see this post below) that the Supreme Court has refused to rule a state law unconstitutional. In the unanimous Ayotte ruling, the court seems to have gone out of its way to rule on narrow grounds and give the New Hampshire Legislature the benefit of the doubt. It's way, way too early to tell, but I hope this becomes a hallmark of the Roberts court: deference to Legislatures and a modest-scope jurisprudence.
Of course, the law itself has to return to the Appeals Court in Boston (the Fightin' First!), where it may indeed be thrown out. But the Supremes' reluctance to do just that gives me hope.
Isn't this the purpose of our federal system, by the way? If Oregon wants an assisted-suicide law, they should be given a bit of leeway to do so; if New Hampshire wants parental notification abortion laws, we should be given that same leeway. Thoughts?
This marks the second time in as many days (see this post below) that the Supreme Court has refused to rule a state law unconstitutional. In the unanimous Ayotte ruling, the court seems to have gone out of its way to rule on narrow grounds and give the New Hampshire Legislature the benefit of the doubt. It's way, way too early to tell, but I hope this becomes a hallmark of the Roberts court: deference to Legislatures and a modest-scope jurisprudence.
Of course, the law itself has to return to the Appeals Court in Boston (the Fightin' First!), where it may indeed be thrown out. But the Supremes' reluctance to do just that gives me hope.
Isn't this the purpose of our federal system, by the way? If Oregon wants an assisted-suicide law, they should be given a bit of leeway to do so; if New Hampshire wants parental notification abortion laws, we should be given that same leeway. Thoughts?
posted by Joshua @ 12:11 PM
2 Comments:
Ideally, yes. But unfortunately, one of the characteristics about people's deeply held convictions (on issues like abortion, or end of life) is that they are, well, deeply help. That often means that part of the conviction is a belief that it is essential that everyone believe, or at least be forced to act, likewise. This translates into a desire to change the laws (perfectly okay, considering we live in a representative republic). The problem arises when people bump up against the dual nature of modern america: America the nation and America, the 50 United States.
An American who feels very deeply that abortion is murder and an irreconcilable evil, will not be satisfied to change their state's law when there is the possibility of enforcing their belief on the entire country via a federal law. Why fight 50 battles when your issue is clearly (why don't other people get it!?) SO important? Even if they are one of the dying breed that has actually read the Constitution, they might still feel that as an American, they have a stake and making sure that their entire country has the correct law as they see it.
This sort of mentality applies to all sorts of issues that people feel are fundamental and obvious (to them). Now I would argue that there IS a legitimate issue of balancing state sovereignty against situations where the states are simply doing the wrong thing The civil rights movement used federal power to intervene where states were getting away with horrendous discrimination. The problem is that this all hinges on people agreeing that something is of such overwhelming importance that we can set a precendent and intervene with federal power. Gun control advocates feel that way about their issue. Pro lifers feel that way about abortion. We can't put the Genie back in the bottle, and we even need the Genie from time to time. The problem is that Jaffar can use the genie just as easily as we can. So I decides which issues are Jaffar-issues and which are Aladdin?
I do.
Seriously, though. I don't love the New Hampshire law (as the absence of parentla consent is there to prevent beatings and allow the child a safe option in incest cases.) Also, if you're a fifteen-year-old rebelling from an ultra-religious family, and get knocked up, you are then forced to get consent from your uber-religious parents, who likely will not give it, and are then saddled with a child as a result of an action which you were legally considered too young to have consented to in the first place. That, to me, is illogical. (Not that having a child is necessairly bad, but when you are denied the recourse you would use in those circumstances, you're saddled.)
HOWEVER, I can't agree with Supreme Court logic for an outcome I like and then turn around the next day and bash them for using the same logic to arrive at an outcome I don't like. States need to be able to legislate to their own needs, as the needs in Alaska are likely to be different from the needs in Louisiana. But why should someone in New Mexico have to move to New York in order to have their rights? I would like to argue that jailable offenses and the like should be left primarily to the federal level, with allocation of funds left primarily to the states, but of course that brings up a slew of it's own problems, particularly in the age of the "bully executive." The chief flaw of any government, and in particular representaive democracy, is how to protect the minority opinion. If anyone can figure out how to do that, then we can start the revolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home