Daily Ritual

Muzzling the Courts?

It's getting to the point where I could write about nothing but Republican proposals that are bad for civil rights and still post something every day. This week the House G.O.P. will attempt to pass a bill that would prevent the federal courts from hearing cases that consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. There are no procedural roadblocks to be thrown up in the House, so chances are we'll see an actual up-or-down vote on this, and I can't say I'm encouraged. The House Republicans are by and large a disciplined bunch, ready to be whipped into shape by their leadership. Hopefully the Senate will ignore this bill if the House passes it. While there are more arguments against the bill that avoid completely the issue of gay marriage (and therefore provide safe cover for legislators who can't afford to be gay friendly in front of their intolerant constituents) than there were against the Federal Marriage Amendment, there's also an argument to be made that this is a less drastic move than amending the Constitution, as it wouldn't strip states of their power to regulate marriage.

The bill confronts a much bigger issue than gay marriage, though. The role of the courts has been, for two centuries, to consider whether acts of Congress can be squared with the Constitution. This role has allowed the courts to right grievous wrongs, including the end of segregation, in a manner that elected officials would take extra decades to accomplish. Congress should not deem its decisions on a particular matter (or set of matters--Tom DeLay says he'd like to pass similar legislation regarding the Pledge) above review by the courts. If it does, the Supreme Court should shoot it down, allowing immediate high court appeals on any issue Congress deems outside the purview of the federal judiciary. A few frightened social reactionaries cannot be allowed to short circuit either progress or the separation and balancing of powers inherent in our system of government.