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

[Skylar]

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.

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.

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So per you, polygamy is already legal?

Why then isn't polygamy legal in any state? How do you reconcile the stark incompatibility of your assumptions with the actual laws and court rulings of every state?

Remember, nothing you've claimed had to happen....ever has. Your record of failure is perfect.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal.

Show me it hasn't happened. All I have to show you is the law. I did. You fail.

But you knew that already.

If you want me to help you find a way out of your mess, so you can leave with dignity, let me know how. But it ain't gonna be easy.

 

[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.

So per you, polygamy is already legal?

Why then isn't polygamy legal in any state? How do you reconcile the stark incompatibility of your assumptions with the actual laws and court rulings of every state?

Remember, nothing you've claimed had to happen....ever has. Your record of failure is perfect.

Cite where I stated either incest or polygamy is legal.

Sorry clown, you can't, cuz I haven't.

Sucks to be you

 

[Skylar]

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.

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

 

[Skylar]

Cite where I stated either incest or polygamy is legal.

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.

So you didn't just argue that polygamy can't lose and must be recognized as legal?

Laughing....that's my favorite part of trolling you, troll. How quickly you abandon your own arguments.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

 

[Pop23]

Cite where I stated either incest or polygamy is legal.

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.

So you didn't just argue that polygamy can't lose and must be recognized as legal?

Laughing....that's my favorite part of trolling you, troll. How quickly you abandon your own arguments.

I did say that.

And you made no argument against it, so by default, you agree.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

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

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

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

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

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

Whether they personally thought that gay marriage was acceptable or not has nothing to do with recusal. The four in the minority made clear their disapproval of gay marriage before they were asked to rule on the case. You have no clue what governs a judge's recusal decision.

Well I guess the whole court should have recused themselves. If everyone had already formed an opinion or conducted themselves in a manner that demonstrated bias as you say.

 

[Skylar]

Cite where I stated either incest or polygamy is legal.

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.

So you didn't just argue that polygamy can't lose and must be recognized as legal?

Laughing....that's my favorite part of trolling you, troll. How quickly you abandon your own arguments.

I did say that.

And you made no argument against it, so by default, you agree.

So you did argue that polygamy can't lose and must be recognize as legal.

Then how do you explain that NO polygamy is legal anywhere in the US? And that no court in the country has ever backed any of your pseudo-legal gibber-jabber.

Imagination, you've got down. Actual enactment of any of your gibberish in the real world? You're our perfect little failure. As nothing you've predicted actually happens. Despite same sex marriage having been legal for a decade.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Why didn't you just name this thread "Sore Losers"?

These are all just thumbsucker threads. Sil is self soothing by acting as the Avatar of butthurt.

It has no relevance to the law, any marriage, or the outcome of any case.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

 

[Pop23]

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

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

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

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

And Iowa lists incestuous pairs. Brothers nor sisters are included, so by law, they are not.

It's really not that hard to follow (oh wait, for you it might be)

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

Whether they personally thought that gay marriage was acceptable or not has nothing to do with recusal. The four in the minority made clear their disapproval of gay marriage before they were asked to rule on the case. You have no clue what governs a judge's recusal decision.

Well I guess the whole court should have recused themselves. If everyone had already formed an opinion or conducted themselves in a manner that demonstrated bias as you say.

The Windsor court had already ruled that States could CHOOSE to recognize same sex marriage. And that this recognition was fully constitutional.

Both Kagan and Ginsberg performed SSM in states that recognized it. And did so AFTER the Windsor ruling. The only 'bias' they demonstrated....was for precedent.

Which is what a judge is supposed to do. Its the entire basis of stare decisis, actually.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Strangely, these four fuktards, had no problem with defining bribery as free speech, or an individual as a militia. Grow up. You win some and lose some

 

[Skylar]

Then show us evidence of incest marriage and polygamy in Iowa and Maryland.

But you can't do that either. Every legal prediction you make....is meaningless garbage. Inept, gloriously incompetent garbage. And of course, if recognizing same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy......then why haven't those folks flooded the courts in Maryland, Iowa...and everywhere else?

Laughing....its like you don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

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

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

 

[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

It is true, you fucking moron. The Supreme Court cases they decided had no affect at all on states that adopted same sex marriage. If that is not true, explain how is it not or shut the fuck up.

I love it when you regressivecrats lose it. GOOOOOOOOD JOB!

 

[Pop23]

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

Why didn't you just name this thread "Sore Losers"?

These are all just thumbsucker threads. Sil is self soothing by acting as the Avatar of butthurt.

It has no relevance to the law, any marriage, or the outcome of any case.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

So of course you've never brought up that others supported the losing side of citizens United. AND you still bring it up.

Crybaby

 

[Pop23]

Incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

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

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

Why do you demean law abiding citizens?

Care to provide the names of everyone who didn't jaywalk today?

 

[Skylar]

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

Why didn't you just name this thread "Sore Losers"?

These are all just thumbsucker threads. Sil is self soothing by acting as the Avatar of butthurt.

It has no relevance to the law, any marriage, or the outcome of any case.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

This just a thumbsucker thread. A rhetorical binky for Sil to suck and self sooth with. As its the same debunked nonsense, over and over......not having the slightest legal relevance nor impact on any case.