Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

25 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

people, who are responsible for making “new dimensions of
freedom  . . .  apparent  to  new  generations,”  for  providing
“formal discourse” on social issues, and for ensuring “neu-
tral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commen-
tary.”  Ante, at 7–9. 

Nowhere  is  the  majority’s  extravagant  conception  of
judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—
and  dismissal—of  the  public  debate  regarding  same-sex 
marriage.  Yes,  the  majority  concedes,  on  one  side  are 
thousands  of  years  of  human  history  in  every  society
known  to  have  populated  the  planet.  But  on  the  other 
side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thought-
ful  District  Court  decisions,”  “countless  studies,  papers, 
books,  and  other  popular  and  scholarly  writings,”  and 
“more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone.  Ante, 
at  9,  10,  23.  What  would  be  the  point  of  allowing  the 
democratic process to go on?  It is high time for the Court
to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ 
“better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains 
urgent in our own era.”  Ante, at 19.  The answer is surely 
there in one of those amicus briefs or studies. 

Those who founded our country would not recognize the 
majority’s  conception  of  the  judicial  role.    They  after  all 
risked  their  lives  and  fortunes  for  the  precious  right  to
govern  themselves.    They  would  never  have  imagined
yielding  that  right  on  a  question  of  social  policy  to  unac-
countable and unelected judges.  And they certainly would
not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to 
override  policy  judgments  so  long  as  they  do  so  after  “a 
quite extensive discussion.”  Ante, at 8.  In our democracy,
debate  about  the  content  of  the  law  is  not  an  exhaustion 
requirement  to  be  checked  off  before  courts  can  impose 
their will.  “Surely the Constitution does not put either the
legislative  branch  or  the  executive  branch  in  the  position
of a television quiz show contestant so that when a given 
period  of  time  has  elapsed  and  a  problem  remains  unre-