Kerby Anderson

This year has already been a banner year for major Supreme Court cases that will be decided and announced in the next few weeks. Add to that the number of important pieces of legislation passed by state legislatures. The airwaves and public forums will be filled with sophistic reasoning. The arguments might seem plausible but will be unsound.

Consider the standard argument that men shouldn’t make decisions about abortions. We didn’t hear that argument when seven men on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe v. Wade back in 1973. We didn’t hear it when four of the five justices were men who ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. That’s only a problem when the court might rule the other way.

We don’t apply such a standard to other social issues. We don’t lament that judges or legislatures passing laws on drugs haven’t used drugs. We don’t complain that anyone ruling on capital punishment should have had a member of their family murdered. In fact, we believe just the opposite. We assume that the best people to rule fairly on issues are those who don’t have personal interest and can be more objective.

Another argument is that national policy shouldn’t be made by five justices. There is some merit to that argument. Why should a few Supreme Court justices always be the last resort on controversial issues? But remember that just five justices decided in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. For the last seven years, we have been warned that the 5-4 decision is settled law and cannot be changed.

We may not like the fact that a simple majority of justices can decide cases or a simple majority of legislators can make laws, but that’s the system we have. And it’s one more reminder that elections do have consequences.