The New York Times has its undies in a bunch today, claiming that the right of the people of California to amend their Constitution at the ballot box should be subverted by unelected judges. The NYT’s editorial staff uses bizarre logic, closing with this unintentional gem:
Treating Proposition 8 as a mere amendment would set a precedent that could allow the rights of any minority group to be diminished by a small majority. The measure passed 52 percent to 48 percent.
So, according to the genii at the NYT, any election decided by a “small majority” of four percent can be overturned by the courts if “any minority group” is unhappy with the outcome. President Elect Obama just won the 2008 presidential election with by a 52% to 46% margin (about 5% with rounding considered). Is it OK for the United States Supreme Court to overturn the will of the majority of voters in the United States if an electoral minority, say white men, voted for the McCain/Palin ticket?
‘Puter accepts the NYT’s logic and calls on the NYT staff to publish an editorial tomorrow calling on the United States Supreme Court to undo the 2008 presidential election and install a conservative Republican of the Court’s choosing as president.
For a real discussion of the issues at play regarding Proposition 8, please see Bill McGurn in today’s Wall Street Journal.