“Roberts was trying to do his best to remind the majority that their decision was limited to the DOMA case, and that the rationale used to strike down DOMA would not apply in the context of a challenge to state laws banning same sex marriage.”
I don’t think I misunderstood him at all. He’s indulging in wishful thinking, while Scalia is being a realist. When cases come up challenging gay marriage bans, I’m sure this opinion will be cited, Roberts’ disclaimer notwithstanding, and it will only take a few liberal judges to ignore that disclaimer and use it to justify striking the laws down. That’s the reality of what will happen, since we know that liberal judges are more about advancing the agenda than anything else.
Sure, eventually it will work its way up to the SC again and then Roberts can say this ruling can’t be taken into consideration, but at that point, it won’t matter to the five fahbulous justices who will surely take that opportunity to find some way to justify striking down the bans.
Whatever, though. It’s a dissent, so for all intents and purposes, it’s just a bunch of words with no legal weight. I don’t expect much of anything out of the Supreme Court, since they have long ago become a rubber stamp for tyranny.
I mostly agree with you on that.
Roberts was indeed a dissenter.
I think my point is that at least Roberts disagreed with the majority and actually wanted to limit the damage of the ruling.
For that he deserves some credit.
But I’m no doubt sour as hell over the obamacare decision last year.
I’m not sure he can recover from that in my book.