USSC is NO Political Coliseum

The US Supreme Court Should Not Be Politicized: Here Is a Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right

Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve

This essay studies the Case of California’s Proposition 8 from its adoption by the voters in November 2008 to the most recent US Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2013. This essay is essentially centered on the legal and constitutional side of the case and the arguments dealing with Amendment 14 to the US Supreme Court, Article III of the US Constitution, and the concepts of due process of law, equal protection of the laws, strict scrutiny, standing, all concepts that should be universal in all legal and judiciary systems in the world. The case then provides the world with a full demonstration of these judicial human rights that in fact should define the concept of Habeas Corpus.

This case deals with same-sex marriage in California. The US Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. They vacated and remanded the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the case because the people speaking for the State of California did not have the necessary standing. That ruling indirectly affirms the ruling of the Federal District Court that had declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Though it does not create a legal void in California, this ruling encourages the ProtectMarriage organization to start a new round of legal proceedings in the California Supreme Court.

This long essay would not have been possible if the first and shorter version had not been encouraged by one of its first readers as follows:

“Your argumentation and logic are good. You shouldn’t be entering the rest of the discussion, maybe you can quote all the experts or send back to what was said in a footnote, but it is not your point. You are following the logic of the legal and constitutional system: Amendment 14, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court. What will happen, we can’t be sure, but you can project yourself in the future, and you are already doing it, by saying that the Supreme Court, despite taking a lot of time (which can also be to get the “temperature,” the mood of the country within the next few months), is very unlikely to commit itself with such an…