Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Well Jakey, you are always speaking for "us" and "we" let me know what 'we' think?Captain Obvious strikes again!SCOTUS will either (1) go for broke and sanction marriage equality nationally, or (2) leave it the way its right now, for legislatures and courts to work out.
There will be no possibility of turning it all over to what it once was.
Morning, Dante. I see you, the Board squeeze toy, have appeared.
Squeak for us.
I would prefer to see this issue left up to the individual states.
That said, the SCOTUS may actually be doing the Republican Party a huge favor if they do issue a broad ruling affirming 'gay marriage' essentially taking it off the table. Perhaps many gay voters will no longer feel the need to identify with the single interest group they have become, thus no longer allowing themselves to be manipulated by the liberal con artists who take their political contributions and count on their votes.
Real Republicans would just as soon this issue go away. It is a loser for the party.
The Supreme Court taking it off the table only helps them
My point is that if the political issue of gay marriage were to be taken off the table, many gays would then become motivated to dwell on the other issues at hand.
Surely many would come to realize supporting a big government welfare state is not in their best interests.
Gays will not turn their attention to other matters. They will move on to the next phase. Forcing religious people to violate their most deeply held beliefs.
That makes no sense at allI would prefer to see this issue left up to the individual states.
That said, the SCOTUS may actually be doing the Republican Party a huge favor if they do issue a broad ruling affirming 'gay marriage' essentially taking it off the table. Perhaps many gay voters will no longer feel the need to identify with the single interest group they have become, thus no longer allowing themselves to be manipulated by the liberal con artists who take their political contributions and count on their votes.
Real Republicans would just as soon this issue go away. It is a loser for the party.
The Supreme Court taking it off the table only helps them
My point is that if the political issue of gay marriage were to be taken off the table, many gays would then become motivated to dwell on the other issues at hand.
Surely many would come to realize supporting a big government welfare state is not in their best interests.
Gays can't support more than one issue at a time?
Regardless, they would not support rightwing fear mongering about big government
And don't call me Shirley
Personally, I'm not fond of that Reagan policy.That makes no sense at allI would prefer to see this issue left up to the individual states.
That said, the SCOTUS may actually be doing the Republican Party a huge favor if they do issue a broad ruling affirming 'gay marriage' essentially taking it off the table. Perhaps many gay voters will no longer feel the need to identify with the single interest group they have become, thus no longer allowing themselves to be manipulated by the liberal con artists who take their political contributions and count on their votes.
Real Republicans would just as soon this issue go away. It is a loser for the party.
The Supreme Court taking it off the table only helps them
My point is that if the political issue of gay marriage were to be taken off the table, many gays would then become motivated to dwell on the other issues at hand.
Surely many would come to realize supporting a big government welfare state is not in their best interests.
Gays can't support more than one issue at a time?
Regardless, they would not support rightwing fear mongering about big government
And don't call me Shirley
Shirley please tell me what other parts of the Democrat platform appeal to them.
Amnesty for illegal immigrants that will further drive down our standard of living?
The crappy mandatory health insurance law that raised their premiums?
Higher taxes to pay for more entitlement programs they don't use?
I would prefer to see this issue left up to the individual states.
That said, the SCOTUS may actually be doing the Republican Party a huge favor if they do issue a broad ruling affirming 'gay marriage' essentially taking it off the table. Perhaps many gay voters will no longer feel the need to identify with the single interest group they have become, thus no longer allowing themselves to be manipulated by the liberal con artists who take their political contributions and count on their votes.
Chief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'Along with their Obamacare verdict, this case will define the Roberts court. I doubt they want to be ridiculed by history and will either stand up for gay rights or duck the issue on some technicality
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
How a case is being argued is how it gets to the Court.legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?They can pussy out on question 1 if they strike down the rest of DOMA a and make 2. a reality.
just sayin'
I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out
The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.
What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!
I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.
Saying they have pussied out, shows ignorance about how the system works. When you try and psychoanalyze you fail
How? Traditionally the Court does not and shouldn't just do anything it wants. although in a few cases it looks like a split majority has. Are you saying a faction within the Court should have acted as one did in Bush v Gore?How a case is being argued is how it gets to the Court.legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?just sayin'
I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out
The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.
What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!
I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.
Saying they have pussied out, shows ignorance about how the system works. When you try and psychoanalyze you fail
The SCOTUS could have ended this once and for all and ruled on Prop 8...they didn't...they pussied out.
Chief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'Along with their Obamacare verdict, this case will define the Roberts court. I doubt they want to be ridiculed by history and will either stand up for gay rights or duck the issue on some technicality
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
Because Roberts will likely find the Sixth Circuit's opinion persuasive:Why not Roberts supporting 14 amendment arguments?It will be a 5 – 4 ruling having the effect of invalidating state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, where such measures violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; the opinion will be written by Justice Kennedy, just as he wrote for the majority in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.
It is possible, but unlikely, the Chief Justice will join the majority; if he did his vote would be consistent with settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and communicate to the Nation that the right of gay American to equal protection of the law is also settled and accepted.
Because Roberts will likely find the Sixth Circuit's opinion persuasive:Why not Roberts supporting 14 amendment arguments?It will be a 5 – 4 ruling having the effect of invalidating state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, where such measures violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; the opinion will be written by Justice Kennedy, just as he wrote for the majority in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor.
It is possible, but unlikely, the Chief Justice will join the majority; if he did his vote would be consistent with settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and communicate to the Nation that the right of gay American to equal protection of the law is also settled and accepted.
'What makes Roberts’s choice so difficult is that the same considerations of judicial restraint that led both Sutton and Roberts to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate could lead Roberts to follow Sutton in upholding the marriage equality bans. Sutton’s opinion provides a roadmap for a potential Roberts dissent in the marriage equality cases. Sutton narrowly construes recent Supreme Court decisions striking down bans on same-sex sodomy and the Defense of Marriage Act, noting that in both cases, Justice Kennedy said the Court was not addressing the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. He holds that the framers of the 14th Amendment anticipated that traditional state marriage laws were constitutional, and that marriage equality has not yet become embedded in American constitutional tradition because “Freed of federal-court intervention, thirty-one States would continue to define marriage the old-fashioned way.”'
Chief Justice John Roberts s tough choices on marriage and health care
go figure
Chief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'Along with their Obamacare verdict, this case will define the Roberts court. I doubt they want to be ridiculed by history and will either stand up for gay rights or duck the issue on some technicality
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
Other than that Republicans openly hate them?That makes no sense at allI would prefer to see this issue left up to the individual states.
That said, the SCOTUS may actually be doing the Republican Party a huge favor if they do issue a broad ruling affirming 'gay marriage' essentially taking it off the table. Perhaps many gay voters will no longer feel the need to identify with the single interest group they have become, thus no longer allowing themselves to be manipulated by the liberal con artists who take their political contributions and count on their votes.
Real Republicans would just as soon this issue go away. It is a loser for the party.
The Supreme Court taking it off the table only helps them
My point is that if the political issue of gay marriage were to be taken off the table, many gays would then become motivated to dwell on the other issues at hand.
Surely many would come to realize supporting a big government welfare state is not in their best interests.
Gays can't support more than one issue at a time?
Regardless, they would not support rightwing fear mongering about big government
And don't call me Shirley
Shirley please tell me what other parts of the Democrat platform appeal to them.
Amnesty for illegal immigrants that will further drive down our standard of living?
The crappy mandatory health insurance law that raised their premiums?
Higher taxes to pay for more entitlement programs they don't use?
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youChief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'Along with their Obamacare verdict, this case will define the Roberts court. I doubt they want to be ridiculed by history and will either stand up for gay rights or duck the issue on some technicality
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youChief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'Along with their Obamacare verdict, this case will define the Roberts court. I doubt they want to be ridiculed by history and will either stand up for gay rights or duck the issue on some technicality
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
no scholars? ok.really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youChief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
no scholars? ok.really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youIf Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore
really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with youChief Justice Warren faced a similar situation with Brown. Warren correctly understood that only a unanimous ruling would be accepted to end segregation. Even with that unanimous ruling, many states and jurisdictions continued to fight to retain the heinous doctrine of 'separate but equal.'
Obviously a unanimous ruling is impossible with the Marriage Cases currently under review; but clearly a 6 – 3 ruling with the Chief Justice joining the majority would send an important message to the Nation, particularly if Roberts himself authored that majority opinion.
So indeed, this decision will very much define both the Roberts Court and its Chief Justice.
If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.
That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.
So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?
We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.
Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.
Citizens United was a partisan decision.
Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.
Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.
Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.
Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.
Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.
The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.
