When the Left erupted in outrage over the Supreme Court decision on campaign financing in Citizens United, they never thought their resistance to the result could be described as “treason.” But that’s not the way they’re playing on the new gay-pleasing decisions.
At The Daily Beast, contributor Jay Michaelson asked “Did The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason? The conservative justices’ incendiary dissents in Obergefell are a shocking betrayal of judicial responsibility.”
Michaelson -- who announced "I'm queer, I'm Jewish, and I'm proud of it" -- suggested somehow that resistance to a Court decision isn’t democratic, it’s treasonous, as if Congress has never passed legislation to overturn a court decision:
The four dissents in the landmark case on same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, one by each of the conservative justices on today’s Supreme Court, take a very different view. With 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.
Ironically, in alleging a new low for the Court, these four justices have brought one into being. Justice Scalia has, as usual, grabbed the spotlight with juvenile taunting usually reserved for the playground. But in fact, all four opinions are shocking.
Michaelson cannot abide Chief Justice John Roberts writing that “Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change.” He translated: “In other words, the majority is arrogant, unrestrained, and thus not to be respected.”
It has an “extravagant conception of judicial supremacy.” “Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role.” And “The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it.”
Why not just tell the Religious Right to buy pitchforks and blowtorches? Chief Justice Roberts’ ironic opinion is immoderate in alleging immoderacy, extreme in alleging extremism.
It wouldn't be surprising for a reader to conclude that Michaelson's an odd bird to be accusing other writers of immoderacy, as he suggests terrorism is inevitable after Scalia's dissent:
Justice Scalia came next. And he begins thus: “I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
It seems inevitable that rhetoric like this will stir the next Confederate flag-waving zealot to an act of, if not domestic terrorism, at least outrageous revolt. How could it be otherwise? And yet this, too, was only the first line.
Michaelson then attacked Justices Thomas and Alito as well, and concluded: “Agree or disagree with the Court’s method of interpreting the Constitution, they are acts of vandalism against one of the foundations of our democracy.”
Michaelson has argued at length and written a book about “the false choice between God and Gay.” It's not surprising that a liberal website would tee him up to go after the conservative dissenters. But it's pretty amazing to see this kind of charge -- you're inspiring domestic terrorism! -- from the same site where Chief Beast Tina Brown could not stomach Rush Limbaugh saying, much more mildly, that he didn't want President Obama to succeed.
[HT Dan Gainor]
