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

[Iceweasel]

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

That's why you want incest marriage?

Who are you to decide? The irony is the SSM advocates simply want their morality imposed in order to pretend gender doesn't matter.

 

[martybegan]

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

I don't have to quote, I don't have to cite, I don't really even have to explain to you. You can accept or reject my positions, but you cannot think that you will not be called out on yours.

deal with it.

Then why pretend to debate?

Why not make drive-by statements of opinion and leave it at that?

You silly fool! This is not about your rights or the constitution. It's about agreed to rules on argument and debate

What rules?

You must agree argument and debate presume a set of rules, or else like Dante has asked you before, why bother pretending to debate? Why not just post drive-by style and leave your opinions unchallenged?

if I were standing in front of an audience on the Haaaaarvard debate squad, your rules riff would have more meaning.

And drive by posting doesn't suit me, I prefer to beat an opinion into the ground until in about 100 pages everyone gives up and moves on to the exact same debate on another thread.

 

[martybegan]

(1)The argument is based on my understanding of the law, once all the crap that has been piled onto it the past 50 years has been removed.

(2) Simplification, not extrapolation that results in "rights" made out of thin air.

(1) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. you appear to be saying the law is what you THINK it is and not what the courts and society says it is

(2) The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

1) Its my idealized view of how I think the law was meant to be applied, not the current concept of "Constitution= what I think it means

2) Yes it does, however it does not automatically grant federal protection of those rights.

 

[martybegan]

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

There you are again....complaining about a state's PA law. This thread is about the Obergefell decision. They have nothing to do with each other.

They are related, and my point was in response to a comment made by paddy.

No they are not. One is a state law that was in effect way before Obergefell even started going thru the court system. One is about Public Accommodation in businesses at the state level...the other is a federal court ruling striking down government restrictions on SOME citizens. Not even close.

It's all in the same bag.

 

[martybegan]

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.

You are off topic of this thread. This thread is about Obergefell....not some state PA law.

This thread is on page 89, is any thread at that count ever on topic?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Scalia and Thomas both demonstrated a clear bias as well. If you wanted Sotomayor and Ginsburg recused, then you'd also have to have Scalia and Thomas recused. Gays would have still won.

 

[bodecea]

There you go with that made up word again....did you ever post that pic of what you said was at the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments? And which version was it?

I'll be nice and post one, there's more but I'll leave you to find them.

View attachment 52980

Note the second figure from the right, is Moses carrying the tablets. You tell me which version it is. There's even a nicer version on a stone pillar at the NY supreme court.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

So..Moses was one of many...ok. Again, which version of the Ten Commandments can be read on these scultures?

You tell me, I can't read it. BTW, what's a "sculture"? Proof read much?

Exactly. And thanks for the head's up on the misspelling...yes, I missed it.

 

[Faun]

I'll be nice and post one, there's more but I'll leave you to find them.

View attachment 52980

Note the second figure from the right, is Moses carrying the tablets. You tell me which version it is. There's even a nicer version on a stone pillar at the NY supreme court.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

So..Moses was one of many...ok. Again, which version of the Ten Commandments can be read on these scultures?

You tell me, I can't read it. BTW, what's a "sculture"? Proof read much?

Exactly. And thanks for the head's up on the misspelling...yes, I missed it.

You should consider hiring him as your secretary.

 

[Pop23]

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

Actually we did in California...but now we don't have to worry about going to visit relatives in Texas or Virginia or North Carolina anymore.

You always could.

Prove you're gay. How can we know you were discriminated against without proof of what you say you are. What exactly is the gay test? That we just have to take your word for it?

And the Love test that proves you couldn't marry the one you loved? Can you link to the State sanctioned love test? That would be a huge help.

If a black man accuses me of discrimination, I have a right that he prove he's black, and he can. If a woman accuses me of gender discrimination, I have a right to ask them to prove their gender.

So I'm sure you can provide proof of your sexuality.

We'll wait.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

They formed opinions on gay marriage. They did not form opinions on the legal question before them. Judges are allowed to have personal views. A judge can be personally opposed to gay marriage or abortion and still render a decision on those issues as a matter of law. That is what you do not understand about the ethical obligations of judges.

 

[paddymurphy]

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!

When you idiots repeat the same tired lies, what do you expect?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Elections have consequences. Presidential actions have consequences.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq and turned his presidency into a disaster, he might very well have held onto enough favorability to avoid the landslide defeat in 2006,

and might have provided enough coattails to get a Republican elected president in 2008.

A GOP president could have put an anti-gay rights judge on the court instead of Obama's Sotomayor and Kagan.


....some people like to refer to the Court as being composed of 'unelected' judges,

but they are, indirectly, very much elected.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.

You guess right. Like you never got a blow job or a hand job.

 

[bodecea]

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

Actually we did in California...but now we don't have to worry about going to visit relatives in Texas or Virginia or North Carolina anymore.

You always could.

Prove you're gay. How can we know you were discriminated against without proof of what you say you are. What exactly is the gay test? That we just have to take your word for it?

And the Love test that proves you couldn't marry the one you loved? Can you link to the State sanctioned love test? That would be a huge help.

If a black man accuses me of discrimination, I have a right that he prove he's black, and he can. If a woman accuses me of gender discrimination, I have a right to ask them to prove their gender.

So I'm sure you can provide proof of your sexuality.

We'll wait.

Not legally we could not....Ironically, for those who are a-feared of gay marriage folks forcing themselves on church, we were married in a church over a decade before we were married legally.

And what is this about having to prove one is gay? Where does THAT come from? Why is it that you suddenly want proof of my sexuality? Are you some kind of sick voyeur?

 

[Silhouette]

Elections have consequences. Presidential actions have consequences.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq and turned his presidency into a disaster, he might very well have held onto enough favorability to avoid the landslide defeat in 2006,

and might have provided enough coattails to get a Republican elected president in 2008.

A GOP president could have put an anti-gay rights judge on the court instead of Obama's Sotomayor and Kagan.

Don't forget, Kagan and Ginsburg are impeachable for presiding over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay weddings" was pending before their Court. Massey Coal 2009, of which Ginsburg for sure voted in favor of, states that no judge whatsoever may display any form of overt bias or they must recuse themselves.

Without their two "Ayes", June's decision would've been reversed. This isn't a thing to take lightly either. The Supreme Court holds back anarchy in our country. And the reason this is so is because people know it is their last chance at justice. When the People perceive that their last tribunal at justice is nothing but a farce of bias and politics, that's when all hell breaks loose. And people opposed to having gay marriage forced on their good Christian state are not ambivalent about it. In private circles there is outrage; especially given the treatment of Kim Davis, being sent to jail for refusing to assimilate into the new cult, forced upon them by their overtly-biased Supreme Court. This is a situation bubbling under the surface of a society already pushed to the breaking point by a damaged economy, increasing poverty and "stress crimes" happening everywhere. What the Five on the Court did was beyond reckless. It was treason.

Ginsburg and Kagan must be impeached and a new Hearing held with children having representation and argument at it. Also, we'd need to have representation from catholic adoption agencies or other Christian adoption outfits.

 

[paddymurphy]

I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

Read the article. They had no blood relationship.

 

[paddymurphy]

Elections have consequences. Presidential actions have consequences.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq and turned his presidency into a disaster, he might very well have held onto enough favorability to avoid the landslide defeat in 2006,

and might have provided enough coattails to get a Republican elected president in 2008.

A GOP president could have put an anti-gay rights judge on the court instead of Obama's Sotomayor and Kagan.

Don't forget, Kagan and Ginsburg are impeachable for presiding over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay weddings" was pending before their Court. Massey Coal 2009, of which Ginsburg for sure voted in favor of, states that no judge whatsoever may display any form of overt bias or they must recuse themselves.

Go ahead..... give it a shot.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

They officiated over same sex marriages in a jurisdiction where they were legal. The outcome of the Obergefell case would not have affected marriage rights in DC at all. Should Thomas and Scalia have recused given their very statements against gay marriage in the past?

 

[paddymurphy]

We'll save those for you when the Oregon bakers and Kentucky Clerk cases get decided, OK? Unless you think the 1st Amendment is going to be repealed...you know, by the Judicial Branch... Or if you think who one has sex with legally constitutes "a race of people"..

The Kentucky Clerk case has been decided. The Supreme Court denied her review. The other lawsuit she filed, against the Governor, will go nowhere. As for the Oregon case, the precedent is well established. They will lose.

 

[paddymurphy]

You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.

No, faghadist can't have sex because of natural physical incomparability, sex is part of the natural pro-creative process, you don't have to be married to engage in that. All the faghadist have is sodomy.

There you go with that made up word again....did you ever post that pic of what you said was at the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments? And which version was it?

I'll be nice and post one, there's more but I'll leave you to find them.

View attachment 52980

Note the second figure from the right, is Moses carrying the tablets. You tell me which version it is. There's even a nicer version on a stone pillar at the NY supreme court.

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

Written law. Not religious law.