My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A lot of these debates seem to remember all the amendments except the ninth....

Anyway, if you want to blame anyone for Judicial 'interference' in what should be the job of the legislative branch then you must blame the founding father for creating a constitution so 'balanced' and so diffusive in its power (while vague on the actual limitations of that power) that it makes passing ordinary legislation impossible if there is a reasonable block against it. While I wouldn't want to compare it to Gay Marriage as such, there was no federal lynch law enacted despite decades of efforts due to the organized opposition of Southern Democrats and other conservatives, this is despite the clear and obvious unethical nature (to put it mildly) of lynching (of course, the reactionary lawyers of their day created all kinds of constitution interpretation to show that not only was lynching constitutional but federal anti-lynching legislation would be unconstitutional. If your constitution allows such interpretations you probably should think that there is something deeply flawed with it). In the end, it took decisions of the court, often reversing decades of jurisprudence, to enact a lot of modern America's civil rights law. Why? Because the nature of the legislature and 'states' rights' had made this the easiest route to enact reforms. The Tenth Amendment, a product of a political compromise between Hamilton and the Anti-federalists and no high principle, which have you begun your argument was one of those stated roadblocks for anti-civil rights (even if the amendment is a legal dead letter). Attempting to argue to those prior interpretations of the court were unconstitutional in themselves and thus invalid is missing the point - it was the same document that allowed Plessey v. Ferguson and Loving v. Virginia as well as Obergefell v. Hodges. What changed was something else...