Contradictions Make the World Go 'Round

I'm finding myself with little motivation to write today.  It's not that there isn't plenty to write about; it is that there is almost too much to write about.  I'm overwhelmed by it, and I'm exhausted from all the thinking I did today. 

I could write about Aaron Hernandez being arrested for murder.

I could write about Zimmerman's lawyer telling a knock-knock joke during opening statements.

I could talk about the ridiculous humidity today, and how wearing a suit while waiting for the bus is not my idea of a good time.

I could write about a courageous woman in Texas and the Republican Majority's attempt to cheat the system in Austin.

I could write about the historical significance of today's Supreme Court rulings, what they will mean for same-sex marriage in this country, and how Michelle Bachmann continues to shock and amaze me with her fundamental misunderstanding of separation of church and state.

The thought, though, that keeps sticking with me, revolves around the decisions handed down today by SCOTUS.  Not their significance; time will march on, and their value will be measured by people who aren't even born yet.  I want to write about what I understand to be one of the legal cruxes the decisions were based upon, and how the majority seemed to contradict themselves... at least to a layman. 

Both decisions seemed to start with an examination of Article III which governs the threshold for the Court to hear cases and rule on them.  This, in and of itself, makes sense to me.  I want my Supreme Court to ensure they are following the constitution, hearing cases they have the authority to hear, and ruling accordingly.  In refusing to rule on California's Prop 8 (and in essence affirming the Federal District Court's ruling abolishing Prop 8), the majority opinion argued that parts of Article III were not met, namely, the plaintiff couldn't prove real injury.  I took this to mean that they weren't legally obligated to do anything; therefore, regardless of the outcome, they would be unaffected.

This also made sense to me; if the highest court in the land is going to offer a ruling, it had better impact the people bringing it to the court.  They also suggested that the group of people bringing forth the case didn't have the authority to bring the case, again relating to a lack of injury.  The proponents of Prop 8 didn't have the right or obligation to enforce the law in question; therefore, they wouldn't be affected in a real way should it be upheld or struck down.  In essence, if any part of Article III isn't met, then the case shouldn't be ruled upon.

On the case of DOMA's constitutionality, the Article III argument is buried in the dissension, and this is what I find so contradictory.  According to Scalia (and who am I to argue with a Justice), Article III insists that their must be a conflict to be resolved.  In the case before the court, both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed with the lower court's ruling.  There was no more conflict.  The Majority said that this, in essence, didn't matter, because it was prudent for the court to hear and rule on the case.  Even though parts of Article III were not met, the Majority opinion said that most of it was there, and this is an important issue; they should rule on the merits and render an opinion.

I agree with the outcomes in both cases.  I wish they ruled on Prop 8, made sweeping statements that outlined the inequality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry.  It doesn't matter; their opinion basically did that for California... many suits will follow I'm sure.

What is baffling to me is how on the same day with basically the same 5-4 majority, one opinion said all of Article III must be met, and the other said as long as most portions are met, and as long as it seems to be an important issue, then the court has an obligation to hear the case.

I'm not a legal scholar or historian... but this just seems weird to me.  How can you have it both ways?  And did the court overstep its bounds?