This would have been a great limiting principle on the Court's power. Unfortunately, the duty Dr. Michaelson wants to assert is a duty not to dissent.
Did The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason?Treason, treason, treason. You must feel very secure in your positions of power.
In controversial cases, is the role of jurist to inflame controversy, or quell it?...
The four dissents in the landmark case on same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges.... [w]ith invective and hyperbole, they pour fuel on the fire of the controversy over same-sex marriage. Rather than merely state their views and disagreements, they use heated language to accuse the five-person majority of imperialism, a “putsch,” and worse.
Thus, the unprecedented calls of elected officials for open revolt against the Supreme Court—a shocking display of treason—are now accompanied by calls from within the Court itself that Obergefell is illegitimate, and the Supreme Court itself no longer worthy of full respect....
These are, as the saying goes, fighting words, and more importantly, they are words that will inspire others to fight. They are what some call “stochastic terrorism,” the broadcasting of a message so incendiary as to inspire some “lone wolf” to violence—if not actual violence, then precisely the kinds of anti-democratic, anti-American defiance we have already seen among some politicians.
6 comments:
"Treason" is going to get to be one of those words like "racism"--so bled of its meaning that I tune it out from now on.
It's hard to engage people morally once the guy with the bullhorn convinces everyone he's shallow and dishonest.
Actually, his "treason!!!!" yappaflappa is a sign of INsecurity. He knows, and we know, that the decision was crap. And he knows there will be repercussions. And he's afraid that they might be serious ones.
Maybe so, both. It strikes me that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning = truth-telling heroes of the people, but Scalia the dissenter and Jindal the elected governor supporting the will of his constitutents = traitors. John Kerry? Secretary of State. John Roberts? Aiding and abetting terrorism.
More abstract, but to the question: Nietzsche's 'transvaluation of all values' is almost complete in the West. Interesting, but not fun, to contemplate what comes next in the chain.
The term "stochastic terrorism" actually interests me more than the term "treason" in this context. "Treason" and "traitor" are often used colorfully, without any intention of making an accusation of the actual crime of treason. But calling it terrorism indicates that the writer intends to define this sort of dissent as criminal in itself - and not only criminal, but requiring uses of the law that are, let's say, innovative, in order to put a stop to... opinions that hold a SC opinion to be incorrect or illegitimate.
And just in case "terrorism" and "treason" were too subtle, the writer also throws in "fighting words". Words at which opponents can be expected to lose all self-control and respond violently.
The implied threat is clear.
(I'm remembering the Democratic rhetoric about the godforsaken Kelo decision. Nancy Pelosi said something to the effect that when the SC ruled, that was like God speaking.)
The Democrats have had the support of the South for a century almost, to make them feel confident in their power.
Post a Comment