首席大法官 John Roberts 的「炮火攻擊」，還沒有停喔！聲請釋憲人主張「妨礙原則」 (harm principle)，亦即承認同性婚姻的適法性，對於同性伴侶本身、對於第三人，都不會造成任何妨害。這樣的論點，各位應該一點也不陌生吧？

不過，首席大法官 John Roberts 則以下列的論據直指其繆誤之處：「『妨礙原則』 聽起來比較像個哲理，而不是法律。….. 大法官的任務，不是藉著「正當程序權」的愰子，將道德、哲學或社會學予以正當化。人民應通過民主程序，將道德、哲學或社會學予以正當化；本院的任務則是在法侓的指引下，解釋憲法，而不是依循某個社會學的觀點。」 (this assertion of the “harm principle” sounds more in philosophy than law. ….. But a Justice’s commission does not confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort – the democratic process.)

最後一個論點：

也是首席大法官 John Roberts 於反對意見書，一再反覆提到的：「創造這個國家的先賢們，一定不會認同本院就司法權的角色所採取的見解。…..他們絕對不會願意將這些權利，讓未經選舉產生的法官決定這些尚有爭議的社會議題。他們也不會同意授權予大法官們，只要透過廣泛的討論，即可作出政策性的決定。在我國的民主程序下，不是只要就法案內容作出充分討論後，即可任由大法官依其個人意願作出決定。可以肯定的是，憲法並未授權聯邦司法機關，只要遇有經過一段時間還未能解決的問題，即可作出決策。誠如本院在過去幾年、於無數的案件所表示的，如果認為選民無法依民主程序，就社會敏感的議題作出理性的決定，這對選民來說，是極大的侮辱。」 (Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. ….. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as the do so after “a quite extensive discussion.” 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 unresolved by them, the federal judiciary may press a buzzer and take its turn at fashioning a solution.” As a plurality of this Court explained just last ear, “It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.”)

「本院多數法官們誤以為可以透過法律的解釋，表達個人的意願及喜好。但是，憲法乃是『綜合不同的觀點所制定的』，也因此，政策的制定不在本院的職權範圍內。這是本院一直以來的立場。本院多數的決定忽略了司法權的角色與界限。當憲法有疑義時，應由人民透過辯論來決定。但本院這次卻擅自越權，逕自就原本應由人民議決的課題作出了決定。而且，本院的決定不是從憲法的基本原則出發，而是從多數法官們自己對於『自由』的看法作出解釋。從而本席不得不提出反對意見。」 (It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing view.” Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understand of what freedom is and must become.” I have no choice but to dissent.)

首席大法官 John Roberts 以「我們究竟以為我們是何方神聖啊？」 (Just who do we think we are?) 這句話，質疑美國聯邦最高法院在這個極具爭議的釋憲案裏，逾越本份地作出侵害立法權的決議。