Defense of change

To Continue Reading, Please Log In


Forgot your password?

7-day subscribers of The Daily Sentinel have unlimited access to all digital content with their log-in. Guests must register for limited access -- 12 articles a month.

Already a 7-day subscriber? Start here to activate your online access.
Don't have a username and password? Register now

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

This week, our Supreme Court selectively and inconsistently applied its prudential “standing” doctrine to issue four “landmark” decisions – three of which incrementally advanced our Nation toward “a more perfect union”.

On Monday, having accepted the complaint of an academically unqualified plaintiff, it ruled that “affirmative action” admissions criteria at public universities require “strict scrutiny” – proof that considering race as a factor in admitting students is both “narrowly tailored” and the “least restrictive” way to further “a compelling governmental interest” (i.e., student body diversity).

On Tuesday, it disingenuously departed from well-established precedent by gratuitously granting “standing” to another dubious plaintiff that had not exhausted available remedies under the Voting Rights Action of 1965 (“VRA”) and by substituting its factual judgment for that of Congress.  By eviscerating the VRA’s “pre-clearance” requirement, the Court has reopened our elections to the chicanery of state/local authorities seeking to perpetuate “white” political power by denying minority voters “equal protection under the laws”.

On Wednesday, it ruled that the “one man, one woman” provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by needlessly discriminating against same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized in any of the several states.

Also on Wednesday, it held that proponents of California’s Mormon-backed “one man, one woman” Proposition 8 lacked legal “standing” to defend its constitutionality because – contrary to oft-repeated religiously-based arguments—“same-sex marriage” harms no one (nor undermines “traditional marriage”), much less “concretely injured” them.

In 2007, the walls of our public library were desecrated by religiously-motivated anti-gay placards – quoting Leviticus to virulently disparage LGBT families.  The Supreme Court has now disconnected the sacramental traditions of heterosexual (only) marriages from the constitutional privileges and immunities to which all citizens are equally entitled.

Thus, just as we now have a bright new public library, so too dawns a bright “new day” for gay rights.



TOP JOBS
  • Home Health Aide

    Columbine Caregivers is looking for compassionate caregivers. CNA's preferre...

  • Pool Manager

    The City of Fruita is currently accepting applications for aat th...

  • Cnc Operator

    Setup and operate machines, troubleshoot with minimal supervision, basic blu...

  • Government

    Mesa County hasJob Openings!To view and apply for j...

  • Liquor Retail

    Wine, Liquor or Beer SalesLooking for liquor, wine, beer experience. Part an...

  • Custodian Ii

    FacilitiesFull-time classified position providing leadersh...

Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy