[Always Right]

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk.

How can the Supreme Court can find a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional? That makes no sense at all.

[TheGrimReaper]

Rehnquist was correct when he wrote that the Court's majority had "entered the culture wars"... where the Court has no business meddling. Those 6 justices have effectively used the bench to make social commentary - and the usual "unintended consequences" are inevitable.

The 10th Amendment has again been spat upon. The debates and deliberations of state legislatures to write statutes have been rendered null, void and meaningless.
Despite the majority's protests, they have given the nod to virtually any deviant, dangerous, harmful behavior - with the only requirement being that such acts must occur behind closed doors.

The "slippery slope" is real...and it looks like we're on our way down it.

[gitmo]

How can the Supreme Court can find a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional? That makes no sense at all.

You're absolutely right. It makes NO sense. Unfortunately, that's what they did in the Law School admissions case. They recognized the Equal Protection clause forbad the discriminatory practices of the admissions board, yet they overruled the Constitution with the state's 'overwhelming' need for diversity.

SCOTUS is out of control.

[jpsb]

It appears that the SC can do any damn thing they want to. It appears that the SC is now the Supreme ruler of America. It appears the SC doesn't give a damn about what the other two branches of government think.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

Hold on...It's the "substantive due process" rationale that I think he's referring to. The SCOTUS in these two cases has decreed that if a sufficient number of American states were to pass an amendment outlawing abortion, for example, they would hold that such lawful "due process" related to passing and enforcing such an amendment would conflict with the "substantive" outcome required by them under the 14th. The implication of the twisted reasoning of the SCOTUS is that we would first have to repeal or pass a modified version of the 14th (and destroy the argumentative foundation for their tyranny), and then pass amendments outlawing abortion, etc.

"Substantive due process" under the 14th is the bedrock principle of this judicial tyranny. There is really no limit to where they could go -- in theory. In reality it is a function of how educated the American people become on this issue, and thus how willing they are to demand action to put a stop to it sooner rather than later. So far the abortion issue was mobilizing enough, but curiously even Republican party leaders and presidents have shown little stomach for challenging the Supremes head on (like FDR and many other presidents have done to push their agendas) -- and they have many tools at their disposal (impeachment, simple political pressure to compel resignations, eliminating funding for the federal judiciary). The Dems have shown absolutely no willingness to show restraint in "capturing" the SCOTUS and Federal judiciary. In contrast, I've always been intrigued that so many Republican lawmakers and party leaders, even some otherwise strong "conservatives," have been absolute WIMPS when it comes to waging cultural warfare through the courts. This was not always the case, and is definitely a post-1960s phenomenon.