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

[martybegan]

That's nice. Every Supreme Court decision except for unanimous ones have written dissenting opinions.

Yet one more thing "conservatives" fail to understand...

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.

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.

Which is why I said "your side" and not "you".

 

[g5000]

Be ready for the usual insults laid against the more constructionist members of the Court.

More than just political philiosphy, I think the Justices were lamenting that this was a violation of common sense.

The Justices were lamenting how easily the lawless scum liberal Justices threw the Constitution under the bus.

None of you, including the Justices, can see the forest for the trees.

It's funny how alleged "conservatives" will whine and whine about how much liberals love big government, most recently whining about the government taking over our health care.

Yet when it comes to big government being all up in our marriages, showering all these cash and prizes on us, the same "conservatives" are all about, "Yeah! More! More!"

Gay marriage is a political issue, not a religious one. It would not even be an issue if we had not allowed government to take over our marriages.

 

[jillian]

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.

there is no more debate.

isn't that what you keep telling us about heller... even though it specifically did NOT prohibit regulation.

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

no. they don't get to discriminate... same as when jim crow was outlawed.

see how that works.. .the decisions are consistent. there is no religion that requires you to be a bigbot. someone who can't offer public accommodation should be in a different business. should a muslim working in a pork store be able to refuse to sell pork because it's against their religion? or should they get a different job.

btw, the BS about the bakers.... they made a wedding cake for dogs. so no one really cares about their protestations about the sanctity of marriage

bigotry is not a sacrament.

we keep telling you people this. funny how it doesn't get through.

 

[martybegan]

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.

That's how the system works per the Constitution. What better plan do you have?

Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.

Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?

Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.

A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.

and yet that isn't what you want when the justices rule in your favor. a "strict constructionist" would have required a well-regulated militia in writing about the 2nd amendment.

and for the record, until Rehnquist, no one expected "strict construction". that wasn't how things were done even when the founding fathers were alive (see: Marbury v Madison).

The 2nd amendment is about militias AND the peoples right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the States from keeping their own armed forces, the 2nd part makes this a reality by prohibiting the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep arms.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you and I see eye-to-eye on quite a few issues but this isn't one of them.

No worries.

 

[g5000]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

 

[martybegan]

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.

there is no more debate.

isn't that what you keep telling us about heller... even though it specifically did NOT prohibit regulation.

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

 

[jillian]

That's how the system works per the Constitution. What better plan do you have?

Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.

Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?

Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.

A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.

and yet that isn't what you want when the justices rule in your favor. a "strict constructionist" would have required a well-regulated militia in writing about the 2nd amendment.

and for the record, until Rehnquist, no one expected "strict construction". that wasn't how things were done even when the founding fathers were alive (see: Marbury v Madison).

The 2nd amendment is about militias AND the peoples right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the States from keeping their own armed forces, the 2nd part makes this a reality by prohibiting the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep arms.

previous justices laughed when asked if the 2nd protected a private right of gun ownership. i'd argue they were correct because the 2nd does not SAY it protected both. it says it protects the right to a well-regulated militia being armed at a time when there was no federal standing army.

but why actually look at history?

 

[martybegan]

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.

there is no more debate.

isn't that what you keep telling us about heller... even though it specifically did NOT prohibit regulation.

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

no. they don't get to discriminate... same as when jim crow was outlawed.

see how that works.. .the decisions are consistent. there is no religion that requires you to be a bigbot. someone who can't offer public accommodation should be in a different business. should a muslim working in a pork store be able to refuse to sell pork because it's against their religion? or should they get a different job.

btw, the BS about the bakers.... they made a wedding cake for dogs. so no one really cares about their protestations about the sanctity of marriage

bigotry is not a sacrament.

we keep telling you people this. funny how it doesn't get through.

Jim crow was government mandated and systemic, not the case here.

Actually its more like making a muslim sell pork, but calling it "sort of chicken".

 

[jillian]

there is no more debate.

isn't that what you keep telling us about heller... even though it specifically did NOT prohibit regulation.

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

 

[martybegan]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

 

[martybegan]

Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.

Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?

Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.

A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.

and yet that isn't what you want when the justices rule in your favor. a "strict constructionist" would have required a well-regulated militia in writing about the 2nd amendment.

and for the record, until Rehnquist, no one expected "strict construction". that wasn't how things were done even when the founding fathers were alive (see: Marbury v Madison).

The 2nd amendment is about militias AND the peoples right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the States from keeping their own armed forces, the 2nd part makes this a reality by prohibiting the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep arms.

previous justices laughed when asked if the 2nd protected a private right of gun ownership. i'd argue they were correct because the 2nd does not SAY it protected both. it says it protects the right to a well-regulated militia being armed at a time when there was no federal standing army.

but why actually look at history?

and yet all you quote is one cranky Justice.

 

[jillian]

there is no more debate.

isn't that what you keep telling us about heller... even though it specifically did NOT prohibit regulation.

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

no. they don't get to discriminate... same as when jim crow was outlawed.

see how that works.. .the decisions are consistent. there is no religion that requires you to be a bigbot. someone who can't offer public accommodation should be in a different business. should a muslim working in a pork store be able to refuse to sell pork because it's against their religion? or should they get a different job.

btw, the BS about the bakers.... they made a wedding cake for dogs. so no one really cares about their protestations about the sanctity of marriage

bigotry is not a sacrament.

we keep telling you people this. funny how it doesn't get through.

Jim crow was government mandated and systemic, not the case here.

Actually its more like making a muslim sell pork, but calling it "sort of chicken".

and restaurants were no longer allowed to hang signs saysing "no blacks, no jews" after the fall of jim crow... government mandate or not.

and southerners were no longer permitted to refuse to serve blacks. so i'm not quite certain why you think the decisions were different.

 

[martybegan]

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

 

[martybegan]

Actually if you check I have never said that about Heller, McDonald, Citizens United, or any other decision.

In fact constant vigilance is needed as progressives will continue to push for the courts to remove 2nd amendment rights by end-run.

Unless the constitution is amended in a clear cut way, the issue is never settled, and even then repeal of anything is possible.

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

no. they don't get to discriminate... same as when jim crow was outlawed.

see how that works.. .the decisions are consistent. there is no religion that requires you to be a bigbot. someone who can't offer public accommodation should be in a different business. should a muslim working in a pork store be able to refuse to sell pork because it's against their religion? or should they get a different job.

btw, the BS about the bakers.... they made a wedding cake for dogs. so no one really cares about their protestations about the sanctity of marriage

bigotry is not a sacrament.

we keep telling you people this. funny how it doesn't get through.

Jim crow was government mandated and systemic, not the case here.

Actually its more like making a muslim sell pork, but calling it "sort of chicken".

and restaurants were no longer allowed to hang signs saysing "no blacks, no jews" after the fall of jim crow... government mandate or not.

and southerners were no longer permitted to refuse to serve blacks. so i'm not quite certain why you think the decisions were different.

again, it was systemic back then, which required government intervention due to compelling interest.

 

[jillian]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

what does it matter that they are "un-elected?"
what does it matter that they were lawyers - and are now supreme court jurists?

and their dissent does not mean they believe the decision to be "illegal," it just means they think it's wrong

Who said anything about it being illegal?

the thread title. "
Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal"

It's unconstitutional

not according to the supreme court, the arbiter of such decisions.

, but that doesn't seem to faze progressives when they go after something they want.

What it means that unless something is clearly unconstitutional, the State or federal legislatures have final say over laws.

the supreme court ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, so i guess that state or federal legislatures don't have final say over that.

So plessey v fergueson was constitutional? Dredd Scott was constitutional?

if you're trying to make the case that the court can get it wrong nobody is going to argue with you.
but that doesn't matter. until the case is overturned (it won't be) reality is that the bans are unconstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

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.

what does it matter that they are "un-elected?"
what does it matter that they were lawyers - and are now supreme court jurists?

and their dissent does not mean they believe the decision to be "illegal," it just means they think it's wrong

Who said anything about it being illegal?

the thread title. "
Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal"

It's unconstitutional

not according to the supreme court, the arbiter of such decisions.

, but that doesn't seem to faze progressives when they go after something they want.

What it means that unless something is clearly unconstitutional, the State or federal legislatures have final say over laws.

the supreme court ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, so i guess that state or federal legislatures don't have final say over that.

So plessey v fergueson was constitutional? Dredd Scott was constitutional?

They were when they were decided....they no longer are.....per the TWO WAYS I pointed out.

 

[mdk]

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.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

 

[martybegan]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...