ShareThis Page
Not impartial |

Not impartial

On June 26, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in effect demoted five other justices in his dissent in the case concerning same-sex marriage: “Supporters … have achieved considerable success …through the democratic process … . That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people … .”

Calling the five majority justices “lawyers” is saying these justices were advocates rather than impartial. Our form of government assumes justices are trustworthy and will judge impartially. Two of the justices had previously officiated at same-sex marriages — impartial?

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion said: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” So, the Constitution grants “equal dignity.” Now where do we find that?

We have gone beyond “due process” to the right of “equal dignity.” This is good news for lawyers and those who don’t feel good about themselves. “Dignity” means the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

Due process was sacrificed by the court for a predetermined desired outcome, resulting in the sacrifice of its own dignity.

Richard Culbertson

Mt. Lebanon

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.