I think it's safe to say the vast majority of HN readers (and myself) agree with you, but historically, the SC tries to make the narrowest decision possible. W

I think it's safe to say the vast majority of HN readers (and myself) agree with you, but historically, the SC tries to make the narrowest decision possible. When the SC makes overly broad decisions, they have been ignored by the executive and legislative branches. The most famous such case is Dred Scott v Sanford, where the executive and the legislature refused to enforce the broad judgement that slavery be protected, and popular sovereignty be disregarded, in the territories. [1] Note that the court is also taking this gradual, narrow approach with regard to gay and lesbian rights, starting with the Defense of Marriage Act and continuing with the challenges of the constitutionality of marriage restrictions in the states. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford