The Supreme Court today refused to hear a case asking them to overturn the Massachusetts State Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. Now one might wonder why on earth someone would try to appeal a state supreme court decision based solely on provisions in that state’s constitution to the US Supreme Court. One would be right to wonder. Just look at the argument the plaintiffs made:
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should “protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court’s usurpation of power.”
Federal courts, he said, should defend people’s right “to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court.”
I’m guessing it took the justices longer to stop laughing than it did to vote not to hear the case. That is without a doubt one of the dumbest legal arguments I’ve ever heard. Pure majoritarianism, something the Constitution is entirely opposed to. By their reasoning, the US doesn’t have a “republican form of government” since the courts sometimes rule in ways the majority doesn’t like. How did this guy get a law degree, for crying out loud?