Bit of housekeeping

Elsewhere that yarmulke who wears a lawyer and one of his very biased, anti-dovbear cronies had something of a snickerfest at my expense. [At his blog; find it yourself.] They found it oh-so-hilarious that I wrote: It has already been decided that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right that no court and no vote can take away.

I don't know why this gave them the giggles, but I'd like to set the record straight: The courts DO recognize that that certain rights are inalienable, and they have said that the "pursuit of happiness" is one of them. (See Loving v. Virginia and Meyer v. Nebraska two landmark cases that guaranteed, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness.)

(Not incidentally, this is why I remain convinced that the California court got it exactly right when they ruled in favor of SSMs. Loving affirmed that "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." When homosexuals are denied this "vital personal right" they are also unfairly denied the dignity, respect and financial benefits that come with it. The court, in this case, didn't act as a"super legislature." They didn't create a new right. They simply said "We agree that this right belongs to you; it has always belonged to you; and the legislature acted improperly when they stripped it from you." This is the proper role of a court, and it is what protects minorities from the bigotry and tyranny of the electorate.) (What protects us from the bigotry and tyranny of unelected judges? Our power to appoint, and our power to impeach.)