The will of the people activists in black robes prevails again. The people via their reps banned it.
And the people, via their courts, repealed it.
The will of the people in 2014 matters more than the will of the people in 2004. And upholding the U.S. constitution trumps both.
Not quite. Judges are not there to express the will of the people, legislatures are. Some of our worst decisions have come about because of judges trying to impose their view of the current will of the people as inviolable precedent. It's all good and well to apply Kennedy's reasoning in Windsor to these bans. But they should be doing it regardless of the will of the people being in favor of or in opposition to that being done. So while your latter two sentences are spot on, I find fault with your first.
I am not suggesting that courts should serve
the will of the people. I am suggesting that the courts should serve
the people. And that is precisely what they did in this scenario by protecting the constitutional rights of those challenging the law. People brought this issue to the courts.
I know you just wanted to make a point, but don't put words into my mouth.
