Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

[Silhouette]

You clearly haven't even actually read Obergefell. Since that is not what Obergefell says.

But the Supreme Court has read Obergefell.

So Silhouette- are you in favor of polygamous marriage?

Apparently you missed this post where I gave a link to the exact pages where the USSC used the words "sexual-orientation" interchangeably with "same-sex" and "gays and lesbians".

But why do you want to harm those children?

You should change your name to "the strawman-inserter"

Little late this morning Syriusly? Did you spill your latte' on your flannel shirt again?

Here's the topic:

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

It's not my reasoning that matters, it's the reasoning of Obergefell which says no state may deny a marriage license based on applicants' sexual orientation. I didn't write Obergefell. The USSC did.

Ah, finally on topic..

Nope, sorry, Obergefell was about the marriage rights of Americans- not sexual orientation.

Nope, sorry. >> Consult pages 7-8 of the Opinion on Obergefell: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf Note the use of the words "sexual orientation" woven in interchangeably with "same-sex" and "gays and lesbians". <<

 

[Skylar]

But why do you want to harm those children?

You should change your name to "the strawman-inserter"

Little late this morning Syriusly? Did you spill your latte' on your flannel shirt again?

Here's the topic:

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

It's not my reasoning that matters, it's the reasoning of Obergefell which says no state may deny a marriage license based on applicants' sexual orientation. I didn't write Obergefell. The USSC did.

Ah, finally on topic..

Nope, sorry, Obergefell was about the marriage rights of Americans- not sexual orientation.

Nope, sorry. Consult pages 7-8 of the Opinion on Obergefell: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf Note the use of the words "sexual orientation" woven in interchangeably with "same-sex" and "gays and lesbians".

The court does not nor ever has recognized polygamy as a 'sexual orientation'.

You made that up.

And while the court cites the word 'sexual orientation', sexual orientation isn't the basis of their ruling.

You made that up.

You make shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

Why would Turley listen to the pseudo-legal ramblings of an ex-horesebreeder who knows nothing about the law, has never once accurately predicted the outcome of a case, and actively ignores any Supreme Court ruling she disagrees with?

That's not how the law works, Jen.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ you don't get to tell polyamorists that theirs is not a sexual-orientation. A brain dead chimp could argue that many men have a strong orientation to sex with multiple women.

 

[Skylar]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue?

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

 

[Skylar]

^^ you don't get to tell polyamorists that theirs is not a sexual-orientation. A brain dead chimp could argue that many men have a strong orientation to sex with multiple women.

Laughing....you're not citing polygamists, Jen. You're citing yourself.

And you literally making up a sexual orientation that no court recognizes isn't a legal argument. Its just another one of the gloriously irrelevant, yet self soothing lies you tell yourself.....

......that has nothing to do with the law. You know, like 'children being married to their parents', and other such gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

......that has nothing to do with the law. You know, like 'children being married to their parents', and other such gibberish.

Hey wait...weren't you guys the ones arguing polygamist-Americans can't marry because of what that marriage would do to the children involved?

You guys are all over the map....

 

[g5000]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

And they routinely exploit women and force underaged girls into marriage.

 

[mdk]

......that has nothing to do with the law. You know, like 'children being married to their parents', and other such gibberish.

Hey wait...weren't you guys the ones arguing polygamist-Americans can't marry because of what that marriage would do to the children involved?

You guys are all over the map....

Consistency, honor, and, the love of freedom compels you to support the Browns' claims concerning the violation of their religious beliefs. If not, you're a glaring hypocrite that doesn't really care about freedom.

 

[Skylar]

......that has nothing to do with the law. You know, like 'children being married to their parents', and other such gibberish.

Hey wait...weren't you guys the ones arguing polygamist-Americans can't marry because of what that marriage would do to the children involved?

You guys are all over the map....

Laughing....says the woman that insists that children are married to their parents and that a 1982 case about child pornography overules the Obergefell case in 2015.

Why would Turley or anyone else abdicate their own arguments and adopt your pseudo-legal incoherence?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue?

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not. Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.

 

[Skylar]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue?

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not.

And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?

Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.

And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.

See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.

Its just you.

 

[Skylar]

Finally found Sil's website. She removed it from her sig so it took a minute to track it down.

Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole

HOME

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue?

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not.

And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?

Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.

And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.

See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.

Its just you.

And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.

Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992

Antonin Scalia on Abortion

 

[Skylar]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue?

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not.

And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?

Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.

And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.

See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.

Its just you.

And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.

Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992

Antonin Scalia on Abortion

And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.

And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue?

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not.

And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?

Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.

And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.

See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.

Its just you.

And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.

Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992

Antonin Scalia on Abortion

And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.

And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?

So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

 

[Skylar]

The judicial power. It grants the courts the authority to adjudicate all issues that arise under the constitution.

And the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment most definitely fall under 'all issues that arise under the constitution'.

The 14th amendment was specifically created to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from abrogation by state law.

Violating the 14th amendment's due proces and equal protection clauses definitely qualify. And as such, the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above legislation that violates it.

See Federalist Paper 78 for the role of the Judiciary. And the 14th amendment for the expansion of that role to the protection of federally recognized rights from the States.

It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not.

And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?

Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.

And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.

See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.

Its just you.

And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.

Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992

Antonin Scalia on Abortion

And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.

And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?

So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.

Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.

A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.

Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.

 

[Silhouette]

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
.

Except perhaps in cases where there is an internal conflict of law; as is the case with Obergefell should the Court try to deny other sexual-orienatations the "right" to marry...guaranteed nowhere in the US Constitution to anyone except the states as authority and final say. One gets federal protection, they all do. That's how the 14th works. Unless the Court is now the the overseer of "exceptions to majority rule on all things sexual orientation"..

 

[Skylar]

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
.

Except perhaps in cases where there is an internal conflict of law; as is the case with Obergefell should the Court try to deny other sexual-orienatations the "right" to marry...guaranteed nowhere in the US Constitution to anyone except the states as authority and final say. One gets federal protection, they all do. That's how the 14th works. Unless the Court is now the the overseer of "exceptions to majority rule on all things sexual orientation"..

An 'internal conflict of law' according to who? You citing you.

With polygamy being a sexual orientation according to who? You citing you?

Your imagination isn't a legal argument. You making up a sexual orientation isn't a legal argument. And as your perfect of record of failure in predicting the outcome of any case demonstrates, your imagination has no predictive value in the law.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.

 

[Skylar]

^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality.

Says you, citing you. Your arguments always come back to the same source: you, just making shit up.

You make shit up. It has no relevance to the law. Nothing happens.

I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.

If polyamory were 'documented in literature' as a sexual orientation, you'd have quoted the 'documented literature'.

Instead, you quote yourself. Demonstrating elegantly what your source is:

Your imagination.

Which as your perfect record of failure in predicting the outcome of any case demonstrates......means exactly jack shit under the law.