Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[OKTexas]

I will, just like you mind your own business when I decide to own or carry a firearm. You want to grant rights based on behavior, how about we just let nudist do their thing anywhere they please, after all their not infringing on anyone else, so what's the compelling government interest in requiring clothing? I can come up with thousands of behaviors that don't harm anyone that you can be arrested for, what make faghadist behavior so special?

People have rights- including marriage and owning guns. But both gun ownership and marriage can be regulated.

Welcome to 2015.

Meanwhile- American couples can get married- regardless of their race, gender, religion or national origin- no matter how much that bothers you.

Funny, why are only regulations that please the regressives acceptable?

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

Good. As I've said treat us all equally under the law. A win/win for us both.

And you still won't admit you were being treated as an equal to every other woman and equal wasn't good enough.

 

[OKTexas]

Don't know why, but I was thinking Roberts was in on the majority, I was mistaken, it was Kennedy. Of course if Sotomayor and Ginsberg had any ethics they would have recused themselves.

Why would they do that?

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

They performed same sex marriages in states where it was legal and those states were not part of the court case....just like the other Justices have performed opposite sex marriages in states where it's legal and not part of the court case. So....since they did not participate in anything in any of the states in question....why recuse themselves? No conflict.

By officiating same sex marriages they clearly showed a bias in favor of it, it doesn't matter if they were in States where it was legal. At that time there were what 2 States and DC that had adopted SSM voluntarily.

It matters very much if it was in states that WERE NOT PART of the lawsuits in front of the Court. That is the key right there.

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias.

 

[Pop23]

People have rights- including marriage and owning guns. But both gun ownership and marriage can be regulated.

Welcome to 2015.

Meanwhile- American couples can get married- regardless of their race, gender, religion or national origin- no matter how much that bothers you.

Funny, why are only regulations that please the regressives acceptable?

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

Good. As I've said treat us all equally under the law. A win/win for us both.

And you still won't admit you were being treated as an equal to every other woman and equal wasn't good enough.

Not to butt in, but since both iowa and Maryland consider incestuous marriage to be between males and females, then it would appear that only opposite sex couples would be arrested for this crime, not same sex couples.

Seems odd to me. I guess that's equal rights?

 

[kaz]

How did being gay change who you could marry?

Exactly the same way same sex marriage changes your marriage.

Um...what?

Let's translate that from stupid to English.

Name someone who I could or could marry or not marry who would be different if I were gay rather than straight.

Don't name a guy unless you are claiming I can marry a guy since I am straight

 

[kaz]

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

So you agree that homosexuality is in the genes. Good to know. That should make it easier for you to see why supporting gay marriage is the only right and just thing to do.

That's fine, but supporting the courts to do it through judicial fiat rather than the legislature to do it is justified by that argument in no possible way

That's how our system works as per the Constitution. So your beef is with the Constitution.

Begging the question

strawman

It's a fact...it's how our system works as per the Constitution. You don't like how our system works...in this case.

You've just committed the you're a fucking moron logical fallacy

 

[BULLDOG]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.

Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.

Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.

The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.

 

[bodecea]

People have rights- including marriage and owning guns. But both gun ownership and marriage can be regulated.

Welcome to 2015.

Meanwhile- American couples can get married- regardless of their race, gender, religion or national origin- no matter how much that bothers you.

Funny, why are only regulations that please the regressives acceptable?

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

Good. As I've said treat us all equally under the law. A win/win for us both.

And you still won't admit you were being treated as an equal to every other woman and equal wasn't good enough.

Being treated equally by the law now...it's grand...

 

[BULLDOG]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.

Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.

The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.

The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.

 

[OKTexas]

Funny, why are only regulations that please the regressives acceptable?

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

Good. As I've said treat us all equally under the law. A win/win for us both.

And you still won't admit you were being treated as an equal to every other woman and equal wasn't good enough.

Being treated equally by the law now...it's grand...

If you had any intellectual honesty, instead of an agenda, you might come off as a real person. Good luck with that. I'm done.

 

[mdk]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

 

[OKTexas]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Were there not a larger majority of states that put in place voting referendums and legislation that stated how they wanted marriage to be defined in their state constitutions? Referndums that were voted upon by the people among those states. I just want to know where this "out of step with the majority" among the individual states' governments is founded upon? It's fine if that's what you believe, it should just be based upon facts.

Unconstitutional as they are currently written...that's what the Supreme Court was asked to look at. Now..there are two ways to fix that...Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designating marriage as only between a man and a woman....or gather enough evidence, get better lawyers and present another argument to the Supreme Court like was done in Brown v. Board of Ed.

This is what judicial activism does, they use the ideological views of select majority in the Supreme Court to trump the individual states because the course of choosing the path of an "amendment" to stand up against all these individual state's constuutions as well as DOMA in order to establish this new interpretative view of marriage, could not be possible. This just doesn't support the argument that this is somehow stemming from a vast majority view of the people in this country. You just contradicted yourself.

But that is how the Constitution set up the separation of powers. Plus the 14th amendment protects citizens from the over reach or discrimination of government. Equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens no matter how unpopular with the majority.

That's not the original intent in representing true equality for all, if that was the case women's equal rights with regard to their equal right to vote without discrimination would be established without question. Because it was found they could not find equality through the interpretation of the 14th Amendmdnt, they pursued the course of establishing an Amendment to grant them such equal right without discrimination based on gender.

And how did that work out?

They sought the legislative process by pushing their case through Congress, as well as the support of the people from among the states to get enough support to make their voice heard and get an amendment passed. Their fight to take their case to the people and never give up the fight was exemplary. It's the way our nation was meant to be. We each have our positions and beliefs, the people can change the course of this nation if we allow them the ability to be empowered through the process, through their legislative representatives.

I don't care if gay marriage was to be upheld, so long as the process involved the people and not left to a small group of justices to formulate based on their personal prejudice ideology or view. Should we allow the same "magic number" of the right prejudice judges to overturn row vs wade, ..... or allow the people to decide for their country THROUGH the representation of their individual state legislatures or a vast majority of Congress to pass? The pandora box of giving that power to a select few of the right ideological persuasion to decide, over the desired majority of the people, can be a difficult pill to swallow .... when those scales of judges no longer tip in your favor. I trust the people know better where they want to see this country go, and if those among the states choose gay marriage then that's the proper course and direction for this nation.

Where Supreme Court justices properly uphold and interpret the constitution, would be in the case where segregation of schools based on race and how they are to be viewed and treated. This treatment of an individual based on the appearance of race, was a clear violation of what's written in section 1 under the 14th amendment. This is what this amendment was written to establish, equal treatment of those who were once considered and treated as second class citizens.

 

[mdk]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

 

[bodecea]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Now now....impotent....

 

[bodecea]

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

Good. As I've said treat us all equally under the law. A win/win for us both.

And you still won't admit you were being treated as an equal to every other woman and equal wasn't good enough.

Being treated equally by the law now...it's grand...

If you had any intellectual honesty, instead of an agenda, you might come off as a real person. Good luck with that. I'm done.

Sounds to me that you are the one being intellectually dishonest....ignoring the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling and basic, decent civil rights for your.....ehem....agenda.

 

[Silhouette]

In my case that is a flat out lie. I have, on several occasions, pointed out your options....Constitutional Amendment or get the Court Decision reversed like Plessy v. Ferguson was reversed. However...it takes effort and time and solid evidence that it was a bad decision.....just like the NAACP was able to bring solid evidence that Separate was NOT Equal in Brown v. Board of Ed.

What does race have to do with gay behaviors and depriving kids of a mother or father as a new social institution dictated by just five people to untold hundreds of millions now and into the future?

3, 4, 5 generations of children not knowing a matriarch or patriarch at all in their entire family line...with no choice in the matter. 5 people in 2015 changing the fundamental course of humanity for millions and millions of people.

 

[OKTexas]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

 

[Silhouette]

Let me get this straight, how can as inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

Exactly, and especially when LGBT is a de facto cult who openly admits a dogmatic zeal to completely re-write our social core using its own unreflexive principles and practices: 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let me get this straight, how can as inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

Exactly, and especially when LGBT is a de facto cult who openly admits a dogmatic zeal to completely re-write our social core using its own unreflexive principles and practices: 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It's this sort of ignorance and unwarranted hate toward gay Americans that validates the Obergefell ruling and the 14th Amendment jurisprudence its the progeny of; we need the Constitution and its case law as much today as any time in our Nation's history to safeguard citizens protected liberties from the bane of the social right.