... and, unsurprisingly, the people who feel entitled to dictate that opinion - regardless of what the public themselves feel about it - are all kinds of pissed off at this fact?
Yeah, you didn't see headlines like this coming out of these filthy rags when the Obergefell v. Hodges decision dropped, even though freakin' California had voted against gay marriage when it was put on the ballot.
Twice. The first initiative was overturned by activist judges. The second one had one of the state Supreme Court justices attempting to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional (under the state constitution). That guy was later vetted by Obama for the Supreme Court.
One presumes that, as far as politico are concerned, those are no longer "the public" and merely "deplorables" - I expect Politico is very disappointed they're still even allowed to vote...
Ahh, but Congress gets held to account in elections. People like this much prefer it when they can simply have an unelected clique dictate policy without letting those fucking voters have a say in things.
Because remember, it's about protecting Our Democracy™
Indeed. The tl;dr of their position since The New Deal has been that the Federal government can do whatever it wants, and the states and individuals can basically fuck off. There are some exceptions, but Federal government power has uniformly expanded as Congress has taken more and the SC has seen fit to allow them. Big government is a leftist position.
... and, unsurprisingly, the people who feel entitled to dictate that opinion - regardless of what the public themselves feel about it - are all kinds of pissed off at this fact?
Oh, oh, wait for it...
And that's a good thing!
You can make anything into a Vox headline by adding "and why that's a good thing" to the end of it.
"Why the gay community is coming for our kids and why that's a good thing."
Does Politico deliberately publish idiotic, politically ignorant tripe? The assumption that the SC should bend to "public opinion" is retarded.
They're not that consistent.
They think the SC should go against public opinion when public opinion is against them, and in favor of public opinion when it's in their favor.
It’s always the same childish logic with them.
Yeah, you didn't see headlines like this coming out of these filthy rags when the Obergefell v. Hodges decision dropped, even though freakin' California had voted against gay marriage when it was put on the ballot.
Twice. The first initiative was overturned by activist judges. The second one had one of the state Supreme Court justices attempting to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional (under the state constitution). That guy was later vetted by Obama for the Supreme Court.
It's also wrong. Unlimited abortion is not popular, and most people support allowing states to decide.
One presumes that, as far as politico are concerned, those are no longer "the public" and merely "deplorables" - I expect Politico is very disappointed they're still even allowed to vote...
THAT'S THE POINT, DUMBASS!
They're going to keep repeating this until it's true, aren't they?
Ftft
It's a court, not a popularity contest. They should only be beholden to the constitution, not propaganda.
Now? I'll remind these psychos that they have been using the courts to push social policy that was opposed by the vast majority for 70 years.
And now they cry foul when one (1!) decision goes against them.
"Public Opinion" here is a phrase meaning false consensus.
SC: We are striking down a "law" that was created outside our normal methods and therefore had no teeth to begin with.
Spergs: But we liked that law!
SC: Then have congress do their fucking jobs
Spergs: ImpEaCh ScOtUS!
Ahh, but Congress gets held to account in elections. People like this much prefer it when they can simply have an unelected clique dictate policy without letting those fucking voters have a say in things.
Because remember, it's about protecting Our Democracy™
Weren’t they always suppose to operate on the constitution not public opinion?
The Constitution is not a fucking opinion.
Fun fact: segregation had an 80% approval rating among whites and blacks when the courts declared it badwrong.
You know what was even more outside the public opinion when the court ruled on it?
Roe v. Wade
and that's a good thing
But isn’t that the point? Opinion shouldn’t sway the justices
Imagine thinking the average leftist could understand they don’t matter
Ok?
As it should.
Indeed. The tl;dr of their position since The New Deal has been that the Federal government can do whatever it wants, and the states and individuals can basically fuck off. There are some exceptions, but Federal government power has uniformly expanded as Congress has taken more and the SC has seen fit to allow them. Big government is a leftist position.