Calling All Lawyers!!!
According to Justice Samuel Alito, the Obergefell case allows judges to now eliminate minimum wage laws, make mandatory minimum income laws, or, really, basically do pretty much whatever they want. You can see his comments, which were pre-taped as part of an interview for the Weekly Standard, here for yourself. But to my little brain, his argument seems to be that different people interpret the word “liberty” differently, but that up until Obergefell the courts really didn’t. Or at least they didn’t in any meaningful or substantial way. In a post-Obergefell world, however, it seems that any judge can rule in any old way and it will be backed up by the SCOTUS decision made this past month.
All of this seems wrong to me — as an interpretation, as a prediction, and as an assessment of past US history — but then again, Constitutional Law is a thing well outside of my professional wheelhouse.
So I’m curious as to what our site’s many attorneys think of Alito’s legal (as opposed to moral or political) assessment of Obergefell. Is he right? Would we truly have to accept an employer decreeing that he was exempt from employment law because through Obergefell SCOTUS said that we must? Or is this, as it at least feels to me, a bit of an emotional overreaction to one of many, many legal cases in our history that tweaked our understanding of liberty just a bit, and which will not lead to complete and total anarchy?
I already know what everyone’s opinion about SSM is, so if possible I’d like to keep this thread focused on the legal question at hand.