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

[OKTexas]

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.

Then he wasn't really her uncle.

Yes, he was. I am uncle to my wife's sister's two sons. I have no blood relationship with them. This is not really that hard to understand.

An uncle by marriage is not an actual uncle. More like an uncle-in-law, like your wifes mother is your mother-in-law, even if you call her mother.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Keep whining.

It does absolutely no good.

It doesn't matter what you or those 4 judges think.

Marriage equality is here and it's here to stay.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

No move onto whining about something else that's inconsequential. This is a dead issue.

Actually they don't have to accept it, that's the one thing you progressives never seem to grasp.At best they have to smile and keep their mouth shut around bigoted SJW types, but they never have to just accept it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

That isn't quite true. They didn't deny review, they denied a stay.

There was a preliminary injunction issued by the District court didn't stay the implementation of the injunction, the lack of stay was appealed to the Circuit Court and they declined to issue one, the lack of stay was then appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS refused to step in an issue a stay.

The full case is still going to go to a hearing to determine if there will be a permanent injunction and that decision can still be appealed to the Circuit Court and then on to the SCOTUS.

The case is not over yet and therefore the SCOTUS has not denied a review of an appeal on the merits.


>>>>

From time to time your legal CDO comes in quite handy.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

They are not being ordered removed when they are historical. The asshole Chief Judge in Alabama installed his Ten Commandments a couple of years ago.

Doesn't alter that fact that they're historical and contributed to our current legal system.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

What for, defending an institution that's been around for thousands of years? That's not bias, it's common sense.

And it is not bias to perform a legal wedding. None of the justices should have recused.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

That isn't quite true. They didn't deny review, they denied a stay.

There was a preliminary injunction issued by the District court didn't stay the implementation of the injunction, the lack of stay was appealed to the Circuit Court and they declined to issue one, the lack of stay was then appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS refused to step in an issue a stay.

The full case is still going to go to a hearing to determine if there will be a permanent injunction and that decision can still be appealed to the Circuit Court and then on to the SCOTUS.

The case is not over yet and therefore the SCOTUS has not denied a review of an appeal on the merits.


>>>>

From time to time your legal CDO comes in quite handy.

They

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.

That isn't quite true. They didn't deny review, they denied a stay.

There was a preliminary injunction issued by the District court didn't stay the implementation of the injunction, the lack of stay was appealed to the Circuit Court and they declined to issue one, the lack of stay was then appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS refused to step in an issue a stay.

The full case is still going to go to a hearing to determine if there will be a permanent injunction and that decision can still be appealed to the Circuit Court and then on to the SCOTUS.

The case is not over yet and therefore the SCOTUS has not denied a review of an appeal on the merits.


>>>>

They denied review of the stay of the granting of injunctive relief. Given the burden of proof to obtain an injunction, the refusal to stay the injunction send a clear message that the results will be the same on the merits.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

They are not being ordered removed when they are historical. The asshole Chief Judge in Alabama installed his Ten Commandments a couple of years ago.

Doesn't alter that fact that they're historical and contributed to our current legal system.

It is because the tablets that have been there for decades makes them historical that they do not constitute the establishment of religion. The tablets are historical; not the ten commandments themselves.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

What for, defending an institution that's been around for thousands of years? That's not bias, it's common sense.

And it is not bias to perform a legal wedding. None of the justices should have recused.

It was when the legal standing of that wedding was still pending in 48 States.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

If judges only made decisions based on black letter law and the Constitution, a majority ruling would be the exception, not the rule.

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

What for, defending an institution that's been around for thousands of years? That's not bias, it's common sense.

And it is not bias to perform a legal wedding. None of the justices should have recused.

It was when the legal standing of that wedding was still pending in 48 States.

Not 48. And since it was legal in DC, what is your point?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

They are not being ordered removed when they are historical. The asshole Chief Judge in Alabama installed his Ten Commandments a couple of years ago.

Doesn't alter that fact that they're historical and contributed to our current legal system.

It is because the tablets that have been there for decades makes them historical that they do not constitute the establishment of religion. The tablets are historical; not the ten commandments themselves.

BS, I guess a copy on any historical document doesn't contain the same history of the original, that doesn't make sense. It's the content that makes something historical when it comes to documents.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

No, because both are members of an organization that has lobbied against gay marriage, attending weekly meetings of said organization. And Thomas' wife is a paid lobbyist for far right groups that opposed gay marriage. Or Scalia's public comments before the gay marriage cases?

In responding to the brave Princeton student, Duncan Hosie, who asked about his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, Scalia was characteristically unrepentant. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” Scalia said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Can we have it against other things? I don’t apologize for the things I raise.” (MSNBC did an extended segment on the flap, featuring Hosie and Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.)

It’s safe to say that Scalia, an avowed Catholic, is not likely to receive huzzahs at his local Gay Pride march. But does his apparent approval of “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” mean that he should not be part of the court that decides the constitutionality of gay marriage?"

The answer to the question about recusal is no, he should not. Nor should Kagan or Ginsburg.

The only thing I've seen posted was on Thomas wife, it said nothing about him being a member.

He and Scalia are Roman Catholics. They attend church every sunday. Their Church has lobbied against Gay Marriage. That is as strong a reason for recusal as the one you keep harping on. Which, by the way, is bullshit. None of them should have recused.

 

[Skylar]

You are funny.

And you are inducted into a cult mindset. I'd rather be funny, thanks...

I do enjoy you continuing to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

That's the problem...everyone agrees with you. Nobody in this country believes for a moment that gay-anything will lose in court to either the majority, to states or to Christianity. That indicates an assault on our system of justice has been complete and has undermined the public's faith in all levels of courts clear to the Top. No society may remain intact when a populace perceives there is no true justice for them.

Blithering nonsense, from top to bottom. First, you being prevented from deny people rights isn't an 'injustice'. Gays getting married does nothing to you. It takes nothing from you. Rendering your 'injustice' argument more melodramatic hysterics, signifying nothing.

Second, we're not instituting Christian Sharia. While you've made it clear that you believe all civil law should be subject to Christian religious law.....that's not how our system of laws worked. Nor has ever worked. And we've survived 220 years. The idea that society won't 'remain intact' now because Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.....is just empty babble.

Remember, who one chooses to have sex with is not "a race of people"...when a certain sexual kink organizes as a forceful legal machine....it's a cult. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And more lies. As the essay you're citing isn't a 'gay manifesto'. No one was even aware it existed until you dug it up. Rendering your 'manifesto' narrative more useless nonsense.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

If judges only made decisions based on black letter law and the Constitution, a majority ruling would be the exception, not the rule.

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.

 

[paddymurphy]

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

They are not being ordered removed when they are historical. The asshole Chief Judge in Alabama installed his Ten Commandments a couple of years ago.

Doesn't alter that fact that they're historical and contributed to our current legal system.

It is because the tablets that have been there for decades makes them historical that they do not constitute the establishment of religion. The tablets are historical; not the ten commandments themselves.

BS, I guess a copy on any historical document doesn't contain the same history of the original, that doesn't make sense. It's the content that makes something historical when it comes to documents.

No. It is the fact that it was placed on the building when it was constructed. That is what made it not subject to removal. Here, educate yourself. VAN ORDEN V. PERRY

 

[OKTexas]

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?

What for, defending an institution that's been around for thousands of years? That's not bias, it's common sense.

And it is not bias to perform a legal wedding. None of the justices should have recused.

It was when the legal standing of that wedding was still pending in 48 States.

Not 48. And since it was legal in DC, what is your point?

Really, how many States had voluntarily adopted SSM at the time of the ruling and not had it imposed by some court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

What for, defending an institution that's been around for thousands of years? That's not bias, it's common sense.

And it is not bias to perform a legal wedding. None of the justices should have recused.

It was when the legal standing of that wedding was still pending in 48 States.

Not 48. And since it was legal in DC, what is your point?

Really, how many States had voluntarily adopted SSM at the time of the ruling and not had it imposed by some court?

If that mattered what's the point of having a Constitution?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

No, because both are members of an organization that has lobbied against gay marriage, attending weekly meetings of said organization. And Thomas' wife is a paid lobbyist for far right groups that opposed gay marriage. Or Scalia's public comments before the gay marriage cases?

In responding to the brave Princeton student, Duncan Hosie, who asked about his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, Scalia was characteristically unrepentant. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” Scalia said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Can we have it against other things? I don’t apologize for the things I raise.” (MSNBC did an extended segment on the flap, featuring Hosie and Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.)

It’s safe to say that Scalia, an avowed Catholic, is not likely to receive huzzahs at his local Gay Pride march. But does his apparent approval of “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” mean that he should not be part of the court that decides the constitutionality of gay marriage?"

The answer to the question about recusal is no, he should not. Nor should Kagan or Ginsburg.

The only thing I've seen posted was on Thomas wife, it said nothing about him being a member.

He and Scalia are Roman Catholics. They attend church every sunday. Their Church has lobbied against Gay Marriage. That is as strong a reason for recusal as the one you keep harping on. Which, by the way, is bullshit. None of them should have recused.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Silhouette]

It doesn't matter what you or those 4 judges think.

Marriage equality is here and it's here to stay.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it..

Fallicy #1, June's Decision was not about marriage equality. If it was, all parties to the marriage contract up for radical revision would've had a seat at the table. Children, religions, polygamists and incestuous people had no seat at that table....yet... So it was marriage favoritism...towards a very select and organized sexual kink, leaving all others out of the discussions...indeed even barring some from the discussions...

Fallicy #2. Contract case law says that nobody has to accept the mistrial of Spring 2015 on the proposed revisions to the marriage contract.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

No, because both are members of an organization that has lobbied against gay marriage, attending weekly meetings of said organization. And Thomas' wife is a paid lobbyist for far right groups that opposed gay marriage. Or Scalia's public comments before the gay marriage cases?

In responding to the brave Princeton student, Duncan Hosie, who asked about his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, Scalia was characteristically unrepentant. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” Scalia said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Can we have it against other things? I don’t apologize for the things I raise.” (MSNBC did an extended segment on the flap, featuring Hosie and Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.)

It’s safe to say that Scalia, an avowed Catholic, is not likely to receive huzzahs at his local Gay Pride march. But does his apparent approval of “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” mean that he should not be part of the court that decides the constitutionality of gay marriage?"

The answer to the question about recusal is no, he should not. Nor should Kagan or Ginsburg.

The only thing I've seen posted was on Thomas wife, it said nothing about him being a member.

He and Scalia are Roman Catholics. They attend church every sunday. Their Church has lobbied against Gay Marriage. That is as strong a reason for recusal as the one you keep harping on. Which, by the way, is bullshit. None of them should have recused.

Stronger. As the Windsor ruling found that the States most definitely have the authority to recognize same sex marriage. And that determination overrides Federal law. Both Maryland and DC recognized same sex marriage. There is no 'same sex marriage' in Maryland or DC law. There is just marriage. There is no difference in the licenses, process or procedures.

Neither DC nor Maryland were even parties to the Obergefell nor would they be effected by it. The authority they excercised was established in Windsor. Making Kagan and Ginsberg's officiating a wedding in these localities completely in line with the Windsor decision and the authority it recognized for the States in authorizing same sex marriage. The only bias that Kagan and Ginsberg showed was for precedent.

Which is what a judge is supposed to do.