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.
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.
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 ?
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
A good rule of thumb on that kind of stuff is.. "how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the five pillars of Islam or a koran sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion". If that bothers you.....ask yourself why.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 ?
How can you selectively apply the 14th amendment when it applies to all American citizens?So you want to pick and choose what the 14th Amendment protects, but you don't want others to do the same.
Right back at ya hero. You seem to think the 14th can't be selectively applied and the 2nd can. You can't have it both ways.
You still haven't demonstrated how it was selectively applied, marriage laws treated all men and women equally, there was no discrimination based on sex.
Which is exactly the same thing they said about restrictions on race. And the argument worked for 85 years.
Wrong, faghadist wanted the right to chose something that didn't exist in this country, or anywhere else in the world till 1996 and still doesn't exist in the vast majority of the world. The court invented a right from thin air.
Why would they do that?Um...do you even know which Justices supported striking down anti-SSM restrictions? From your comment right there, it appears you do not even know which Justices to complain about.And....is the government allowed to discriminate against one or the other in application of the law?
You have yet to demonstrate they were, all you got is a biased opinion, just like the 4 regressive judges and the liar Roberts.
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.
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.
So, you did not read the article. Too many words, too many syllables.If you had bothered to read teh Harvard Law review, which I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand, you would have seen a similar discussion that concluded that while marriage has some of the elements of a contract, the law treats is as a status. A contract is a private agreement between two people or entities that contains terms that they have agreed upon. A marriage is a status given to a relationship by the state and the terms of that relationship are governed by the law.The law does not treat marriage as a contract, regardless of some blogger claims.
He's actually a UCLA law professor. that counters your Haaaaaavard quote.
If you had bothered to read my post, you would realize that the word contract is broad, you are applying it narrowly to suit your own interest.
Give up, you have been proven wrong, just give up.
if is so isolated, where is the compelling government interest in forcing these people to comply?
And we all know it won't end there. Your side will go after churches sooner or later, by way of PA law or removing their tax exempt statuses.
Of course you will go after Christian Churches, not mosques, because you know, you are gutless.
The Constitution mandates equal protection under the law, no matter how few of any given sort are entitled to that protection.
The constitution also mandates free exercise of religion, and I don't see where it says "unless you are in business, then fuck off"
You are being absolutist in one case, and not in the other. typical of the "living document" idiocy found in progressive constitutional thought.
You can't have constitutional disputes ending in a tie.
Then you act only when there is a compelling government interest one way or another. Jim crow era discrimination was one, a few bakers not wanting to bake cakes isn't.[/QUOTE
Whether anti-discrimination laws are needed is up to voters. In the states that have included gay people among those protected, the people chose to include them.
Some what?No....because of safety and health laws............which, btw, you can't get out of following by crying religion either.And you are just too fucking stupid to understand the difference between protection of the rights of people and forcing tolerance. The law cannot make you tolerate that which you disagree with. You can think and disapprove all you want. In most states, you can even discriminate against gay people. In other threads I shredded your claim that anti-discrimination laws are attempts to control what people think or believe. They are not. You can think or believe whatever you want. You cannot, however, engage in discriminatory acts.Imposing is all your side does. You want forced acceptance, not tolerance. and you will ruin anyone who gets in the way of that.
And your definition of freedom smacks in the face of your desire, shown in other threads, to punish people for their beliefs using the commerce end run.
So no shoes, no shirt, no service signs are illegal?
Some mohels beg to differ on that.
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.
Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
Conservatives think that the Supreme Court rules on Constitutionality based upon the 'will of the majority'?
Still upset about Loving v. Virginia eh?
Yet one more thing "conservatives" fail to understand...That's nice. Every Supreme Court decision except for unanimous ones have written dissenting opinions.
It's understood perfectly.
Ah, so the "conservatives" in this thread are deliberately misrepresenting it? That wouldn't be surprising.
No, your side keeps saying the "debate is over" every time you get qa 5-4 decision that favors your world-view, and the dissent on this case clearly shows how wrong you are.
Any idiot can continue to 'debate' against same gender marriage.
But the issue is settled legally for the moment.
As was pointed out- the idiots have two options- and they aren't actually pursuing either.
So...you don't think the Supreme Court should be determining the the constitutionality of laws?From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
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:
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.
Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
Leftists want no truck with that silly "will of the people", "democratic process" nonsense. They believe that the "obvious moral superiority" of their positions trumps any need to let people decide for themselves what they want. People are just stupid sheep, after all, who need to have what's "best" for them done to them whether they like it or not.
I'll bet he doesn't have a problem when the Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional gun laws.
You can say that all you like....but reality is otherwise.So, you did not read the article. Too many words, too many syllables.If you had bothered to read teh Harvard Law review, which I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand, you would have seen a similar discussion that concluded that while marriage has some of the elements of a contract, the law treats is as a status. A contract is a private agreement between two people or entities that contains terms that they have agreed upon. A marriage is a status given to a relationship by the state and the terms of that relationship are governed by the law.The law does not treat marriage as a contract, regardless of some blogger claims.
He's actually a UCLA law professor. that counters your Haaaaaavard quote.
If you had bothered to read my post, you would realize that the word contract is broad, you are applying it narrowly to suit your own interest.
Give up, you have been proven wrong, just give up.
No need, because your position is wrong.
As is Obergefell.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.
Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
Conservatives think that the Supreme Court rules on Constitutionality based upon the 'will of the majority'?
Still upset about Loving v. Virginia eh?
Loving was a proper decision.
You can say that all you like....but reality is otherwise.So, you did not read the article. Too many words, too many syllables.If you had bothered to read teh Harvard Law review, which I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand, you would have seen a similar discussion that concluded that while marriage has some of the elements of a contract, the law treats is as a status. A contract is a private agreement between two people or entities that contains terms that they have agreed upon. A marriage is a status given to a relationship by the state and the terms of that relationship are governed by the law.He's actually a UCLA law professor. that counters your Haaaaaavard quote.
If you had bothered to read my post, you would realize that the word contract is broad, you are applying it narrowly to suit your own interest.
Give up, you have been proven wrong, just give up.
No need, because your position is wrong.
When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.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.
As is Obergefell.From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
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:
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.
Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
Conservatives think that the Supreme Court rules on Constitutionality based upon the 'will of the majority'?
Still upset about Loving v. Virginia eh?
Loving was a proper decision.
They did not "hear a case" based on same sex marriage. They heard a case from a state that banned such marriages. They performed the marriages in a state where such marriages were legal. Should Thomas have recused himself because he was a member of an organization that lobbied against gay marraige? Attended weekly meetings of this organization? Had a wife active in lobbying groups that opposed gay marriage? Which is more evidence of a bias? A judge performing a legal wedding or a Judge who regularly attends meetings of an organization that lobbied against gay marriage?Why would they do that?Um...do you even know which Justices supported striking down anti-SSM restrictions? From your comment right there, it appears you do not even know which Justices to complain about.And....is the government allowed to discriminate against one or the other in application of the law?
You have yet to demonstrate they were, all you got is a biased opinion, just like the 4 regressive judges and the liar Roberts.
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.
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.
It is not a disability. It is also not a basis to deny that person the same rights you have.You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?They were not being treated equally. And the Court certainly does have the authority to overturn laws that intrude into the most intimate relationships people have. What problem do you folks have with the concept of liberty? With the concept that when it comes to important, personal and intimate decisions, like who to have sex with, whether to use contraception, whether to undergo a medical procedure, who to marry? Why do you want the government involved in that? Mind your own fucking business.
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?
We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.
It absolutely does matter. It certainly made them less biased than Thomas.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.Why would they do that?Um...do you even know which Justices supported striking down anti-SSM restrictions? From your comment right there, it appears you do not even know which Justices to complain about.
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.
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.
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.
