The plaintiffs in these cases are suing because democracy failed them. They didn’t have the votes in the places where votes count: the ballot box at referendum time, the state legislature. They turned to the courts because the Constitution, and the judiciary that is supposed to enforce it, must check democracy’s excesses. Majorities are only entitled to have their way when they aren’t having their way with someone’s rights. But if constitutional interpretation is all about who has the most votes for a policy, why should the Court care about votes on an internet brief when it can look to the result of a real statewide election?
There are plenty of places for you to pitch your soapbox, court ain’t one of them.
March 4, 2015
[While in this instance Gura is not referring to gun rights litigation the principle is the same. This principle, as well as many others, appears to be lost on our opponents. It may benefit us to remind them of this at appropriate times.
It wouldn’t matter if 90% of the population were in favor of enslaving the other 10%. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for that and any laws enabling it can and should be struck down. The same applies to laws infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]