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

[Skylar]

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

I'm arguing that your record of predictions...is one of perfect failure. And that nothing you've insisted must happen ever has.

Or more simply, you don't know what you're talking about. But tell us again about the future. It makes me giggle.

I predicted Ohio State would win the College Football championship, and Obama would flip flop on SSM.

Looks like I'm batting a thousand.

Yeah, but not a single state in which same sex marriage is legal has ever legalized incest, incest marriage or polygamy. Despite your prediction that the latter would follow the former. Not in the decade since same sex marriage first became legal in the US.

Looks like your record of accuracy is one of perfect, incompetent failure.

But this time your baseless predictions of the future are accurate, huh? I've got a better explanation: You don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal dimwit.

So is incest marriage and polygamy. But that hasn't stopped you, has it?

You never let reality get in the way of your little obsession with incest, do you?

I've posted links previously to both the Iowa and Maryland laws. Apparently some forms of same sex family marriage appear legal, unless you can explain how two brothers can have one vagina

And by 'apparently', you mean you imagine it must be so? Because when we ask you to show us evidence that any court in Maryland or Iowa backs any of your pseudo-legal gibberish....or to show us evidence of a SINGLE incest marriage or plural marriage in either State....

......you start babbling about lottery numbers.

So much for your 'predictions'. As usual...its the same meaningless garbage. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

The latest SCOTUS ruling on maobamacare proves you a liar, they ignored the plain language law and deferred to their own interpretation of legislative intent.

 

[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 ?

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.

It doesn't.

 

[bodecea]

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 ?

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.

It doesn't.

Glad to hear it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

How can you selectively apply the 14th amendment when it applies to all American citizens?

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.

Wrong? No, I'm absolutely right. You are using the exact same argument that racist bigots used against miscegenation.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
​

And if you believe a right was created out of "thin air" then it was created in 1965 and reiterated in a few cases, Obergefell just being the most recent.

One minor flaw in your argument, miscegenation laws didn't treat all races equally in most cases, they applied only to the coupling of blacks and whites. Marriage laws pre-oberefell didn't have that discrepancy. All men and women were treated equally, regardless of race.

 

[OKTexas]

You have yet to demonstrate they were, all you got is a biased opinion, just like the 4 regressive judges and the liar Roberts.

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.

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.

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

 

[OKTexas]

You have yet to demonstrate they were, all you got is a biased opinion, just like the 4 regressive judges and the liar Roberts.

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.

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 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?

What organization would that be, never heard that one.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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 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?

What organization would that be, never heard that one.

Virginia Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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.

It is not a disability. It is also not a basis to deny that person the same rights you have.

They had the same rights I had, when are you going to get that through your head?

 

[Pop23]

^^^^ rectum abrasions acting up

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

Still relying on that old bluff.

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

Unless your claiming that the 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage....your time line is garbage.

But then, you already know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

And yet not one state has done anything you insisted they must. There's not so much as a single court anywhere in the US affirmed any piece of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Despite your claim that the 14th amendment requires that all of them do.

Huh. So much for your 'predictions'.

Except Maryland, Iowa, and when it comes to first cousins, half a dozen more.

That is unless you know how two brothers can have a vagina (Maryland)

Oh, these happened simultaneously as Obergfell.

Guess I'm ahead of schedule.

 

[Billy000]

Nothing in the constitution explicitly or implicitly states that two people of the same sex can't get married. The ruling just allowed everyone.

Case closed. Shut up.

 

[Skylar]

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

Still relying on that old bluff.

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

Unless your claiming that the 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage....your time line is garbage.

But then, you already know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

And yet not one state has done anything you insisted they must. There's not so much as a single court anywhere in the US affirmed any piece of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Despite your claim that the 14th amendment requires that all of them do.

Huh. So much for your 'predictions'.

Except Maryland, Iowa, and when it comes to first cousins, half a dozen more.

That is unless you know how two brothers can have a vagina (Maryland)

You're speaking of siblings and parents. Not first cousins. And nothing you've cited has a thing to do with same sex marriage, nor was 'implied' by any ruling involving same sex marriage.

Is there any part of your argument you won't just abandon the moment it becomes inconvenient?

And given how uselessly inept your last round of worthless predictions were, why would we expect anything but more of the same from your latest round of worthless predictions? Remember, your record of accuracy on the issue is zero.

 

[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.

It is not a disability. It is also not a basis to deny that person the same rights you have.

They had the same rights I had, when are you going to get that through your head?

SInce Obergefell, yes.

 

[Pop23]

Still relying on that old bluff.

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

Unless your claiming that the 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage....your time line is garbage.

But then, you already know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

And yet not one state has done anything you insisted they must. There's not so much as a single court anywhere in the US affirmed any piece of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Despite your claim that the 14th amendment requires that all of them do.

Huh. So much for your 'predictions'.

Except Maryland, Iowa, and when it comes to first cousins, half a dozen more.

That is unless you know how two brothers can have a vagina (Maryland)

You're speaking of siblings and parents. Not first cousins. And nothing you've cited has a thing to do with same sex marriage, nor was 'implied' by any ruling involving same sex marriage.

Is there any part of your argument you won't just abandon the moment it becomes inconvenient?

And given how uselessly inept your last round of worthless predictions were, why would we expect anything but more of the same from your latest round of worthless predictions? Remember, your record of accuracy on the issue is zero.

Did you fail to read Maryland? Simply two people too closely related that engage in vaginal penetration.

Please send me the name of two brothers (same sex siblings) in which one has a vagina.

And iowa prohibits opposite sex related individuals, not same sex.

So, there Ya go, one of my predictions already came true, in world record time.

 

[Pop23]

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.

It is not a disability. It is also not a basis to deny that person the same rights you have.

They had the same rights I had, when are you going to get that through your head?

SInce Obergefell, yes.

You didn't have the right to marry before Obergfell?

Odd

 

[Silhouette]

In Utah, the Brown polygamy family will be pushing for legal polygamy-marriage next. And it will make it to the US Supreme Court within the next five years or less; whereupon there will be no justificaiton now for denying them based on sexual activity (plural partners). .

The Brown's have the legal right to go to court- doesn't mean it will win.
.

Please describe how they could even possibly lose?

 

[Skylar]

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

Unless your claiming that the 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage....your time line is garbage.

But then, you already know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

And yet not one state has done anything you insisted they must. There's not so much as a single court anywhere in the US affirmed any piece of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Despite your claim that the 14th amendment requires that all of them do.

Huh. So much for your 'predictions'.

Except Maryland, Iowa, and when it comes to first cousins, half a dozen more.

That is unless you know how two brothers can have a vagina (Maryland)

You're speaking of siblings and parents. Not first cousins. And nothing you've cited has a thing to do with same sex marriage, nor was 'implied' by any ruling involving same sex marriage.

Is there any part of your argument you won't just abandon the moment it becomes inconvenient?

And given how uselessly inept your last round of worthless predictions were, why would we expect anything but more of the same from your latest round of worthless predictions? Remember, your record of accuracy on the issue is zero.

Did you fail to read Maryland? Simply two people too closely related that engage in vaginal penetration.

Did you fail to show us any court ruling in Maryland that concluded that the legalization incest marriage and polygamy were the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage?

Why yes you did fail.

Did you fail to show us evidence of a single incest marriage or plural marriage in Maryland?

Why yes you did!

Once again, you make predictions based on your own pseudo-legal gibberish. And.....none of it actually happens. Your record of accuracy remains one of perfect failure.

 

[Pop23]

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

Unless your claiming that the 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage....your time line is garbage.

But then, you already know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

And yet not one state has done anything you insisted they must. There's not so much as a single court anywhere in the US affirmed any piece of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Despite your claim that the 14th amendment requires that all of them do.

Huh. So much for your 'predictions'.

Except Maryland, Iowa, and when it comes to first cousins, half a dozen more.

That is unless you know how two brothers can have a vagina (Maryland)

You're speaking of siblings and parents. Not first cousins. And nothing you've cited has a thing to do with same sex marriage, nor was 'implied' by any ruling involving same sex marriage.

Is there any part of your argument you won't just abandon the moment it becomes inconvenient?

And given how uselessly inept your last round of worthless predictions were, why would we expect anything but more of the same from your latest round of worthless predictions? Remember, your record of accuracy on the issue is zero.

Did you fail to read Maryland? Simply two people too closely related that engage in vaginal penetration.

Did you fail to show us any court ruling in Maryland that concluded that the legalization incest marriage and polygamy were the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage?

Why yes you did fail.

Did you fail to show us evidence of a single incest marriage or plural marriage in Maryland?

Why yes you did!

Once again, you make predictions based on your own pseudo-legal gibberish. And.....none of it actually happens. Your record of accuracy remains one of perfect failure.

How could I. It appears they're legal. People following the law don't go to court.

Now you think law abiding citizens be required to go to court for abiding the law?

You really are a Nazi.

 

[Pop23]

In Utah, the Brown polygamy family will be pushing for legal polygamy-marriage next. And it will make it to the US Supreme Court within the next five years or less; whereupon there will be no justificaiton now for denying them based on sexual activity (plural partners). .

The Brown's have the legal right to go to court- doesn't mean it will win.
.

Please describe how they could even possibly lose?

They can't. The polygamist group would only point out that marriage is simply a partnership, not unlike hundreds of thousands of others and none other limiting participation to just two.

Seems a slam dunk to me.