The argument isn't whether I support five people "determining that the Constitution says what they want it to", Its about government, ALL levels, not having the power to determine what private, consensual activities adults may engage in. Like I posted before, the "rule of man" is demonstrated quite well by laws such as "sodomy laws" where a majority has decided to oppress a minority. The "rule of law" only occurrs when government is kept at its minimal purposes, which is the defense of the rights of all. Otherwise, you have the "rule of man" where whatever "majority" is in charge makes rules to enforce against a minority who disagrees.
There have been good decisions, and bad decisions, IMO, that have been rendered by the court. Those rulings that expand the recognition of pre-existing rights are applauded by me, while those that expand the power of government(most of them) are denounced. Decisions striking down sodomy laws accomplish the former, thus I appaud them, regardless of the fact I don't like homos.
But then who defines what is a right? Do liberals get to define health care as a right? That's the slippery slope - the fedgov should be limited to protecting rights enumerated in the Constitution, and not to defining rights, because a lot of trouble has come from that direction.
Where did this right pre-exist at the federal level?
those that expand the power of government(most of them) are denounced
I hate to break it to you - but this ruling DID expand the power of the federal government. And it will be cited for other expansions of power.
Decisions striking down sodomy laws accomplish the former
The end justifies the means, eh?
The argument isn't whether I support five people "determining that the Constitution says what they want it to"If the question at hand is if you support the SCOTUS overturning a law you do not like without there being a firm Constitutional basis for their decision, then yes, the argument is precisely this.