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

[paddymurphy]

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.

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

I'm not making it for you.

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.

It is a fucking uncle you moron. As a matter of law, it is an Uncle. Read the article YOU provided.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Fallacy # 3. You are not a blithering idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

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

From your link:

the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

351 F.3d 173, affirmed.

The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history,

That applies regardless of when a monument is placed.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

The bias they should've shown for precedent was the precedent Ginsburg helped set on appearances of judicial bias and mandatory recusal in Massey Coal 2009..

The question isn't whether or not Maryland or DC had legally ratified gay marriage by their normal internal processes. The question of law here is whether or not Ginsburg and Kagan conspicuously peforming gay weddings, as the last stop federally in impartial tribunals, was proper by the mandates of Massey Coal 2009. Ginsburg cast her opinion in 2009 in favor of a judge NEVER depicting any discernable bias; or they are mandated to recuse themselves from presiding over a case. Because Ginsburg and Kagan presided as de facto federal entities, in fact the epitome of federal entities, over gay marriage while multiple cases were making their way to their Court to determine "whether a federal entity should bless gay marriage in all 50 states" was a violation of the Massey Coal 2009 Finding.

Ergo, the case was a mistrial and must be reheard.

 

[Skylar]

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...

No more so than any straight marriage was 'marriage favoritism'. Meaning that you're guilty of whatever accusation you're spewing.

And the Obergefell ruling was most definitely about *expanding* rights. While your argument is about restricting them.

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

You don't know the first fucking thing about contract law. So your jibber jabber is meaningless. You don't even know enough to form an intelligent opinion. As you do with *all* legal issues, you're expressing what you *want* the law to say. Not what it actually does.

And those states that are converting marriage from a license to a contract are in no way exempted from the obergefell ruling. Nor does the proposed bill even suggest as much. Here's SB377 in Alabama...the most recent incarnation of the 'contract of marriage'.

Show us where it says that the obergefell decision can be ignored, or that same sex couples can't participate:

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

You'll find that no such restrictions exist. As usual, you've imagined them all. As your concept of the 'law' is whatever you make up. Alas, the law doesn't give a fiddler's fuck about the nonsense you tell yourself so you can feel better.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The question isn't whether or not Maryland or DC had legally ratified gay marriage by their normal internal processes. The question of law here is whether or not their doing so as the last stop federally in impartial tribunals was proper by the mandates of Massey Coal 2009.

In Massey the judge in question was elected. He received campaign contributions from the defendant in a case he was adjudicating. The judge overseeing the defendant's case directly benefited monetarily from the defendant.

Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither Maryland nor DC were parties to Obergefell. Nor were any of the individuals they married. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg received any benefit of any kind from any party they married.

Again, Silo.......you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Ginsburg cast her opinion in 2009 in favor of a judge NEVER depicting any discernable bias; or they are mandated to recuse themselves from presiding over a case. Because Ginsburg and Kagan presided as de facto federal entities over gay marriage while multiple cases were making their way to their Court to determine "whether a federal entity should bless gay marriage in all 50 states" was a violation of the Massey Coal 2009 Finding.

Blithering nonsense. The Windsor decision authorized the States to recognize same sex marriage. The authority of Maryland and DC to recognize same sex marriage wasn't in dispute, nor was part of any federal case being heard by Kagan or Ginberg at the time they officiated the weddings.

There is also no differentiation in the law in Maryland or DC between opposite sex marriage or same sex marriage. There is only marriage.

Leaving you without any point of contention that the court had not already settled in Windsor. Making Kagan and Ginsberg's officiating weddings in Maryland and DC no more 'biased' than if they'd officiated weddings for straight couples. As under the laws of Maryland and DC....there is no difference.

You've imagined a legal difference in Maryland and DC. And then based on your imagination, insisted that there is a bias. Alas, your imagination doesn't establish any such bias. Or any need to recuse.

Ergo, the case was a mistrial and must be reheard.

Ergo, you still don't know what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal thumb sucking is still gloriously irrelevant, having no impact on any marriage, nor the outcome of any case.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Read the whole string and try again.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It is a fucking uncle you moron. As a matter of law, it is an Uncle. Read the article YOU provided.

There ya go again, regressing to name calling, I'm done.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Read the whole string and try again.

There's plenty wrong with defending an institution that's been around thousands of years, if it's a bad institution.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

It is a fucking uncle you moron. As a matter of law, it is an Uncle. Read the article YOU provided.

There ya go again, regressing to name calling, I'm done.

Bye.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Thanks Marty.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

This I don't disagree with. Unless they come up with a new angle for trial and the appeals process, I don't think the likelihood is in Ms. Davis favor either on:

(a) her personal religious grounds exempting her as an elected official from doing the job she was elected to do, or

(b) most definitely her ordering her subordinates not to do their job either. She might have had a better case if Kentucky required her to physically sign the license, but Kentuckly doesn't - it specifically allows Deputy County Clerks to sign it.​

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

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?

Read the whole string and try again.

There's plenty wrong with defending an institution that's been around thousands of years, if it's a bad institution.

if it was such a bad institution, why did gays want in on it? Why not createe a new one, just for them? Call it garriage?

 

[paddymurphy]

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

From your link:

the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

351 F.3d 173, affirmed.

The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history,

That applies regardless of when a monument is placed.

No, it does not. If the Eagles wanted to place one now, they would not be permitted. It would constitute the establishment of religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

There was no question at that time of the legal standing, it was recognized by the Federal government no matter what state a person lived in. Now individual states might not have recognized it, but it was legally valid for federal purposes in all 50 states.

But to your point, IIRC it would have been 32 States as there were more than 2 states that recognized SSCM at the time.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

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

From your link:

the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

351 F.3d 173, affirmed.

The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history,

That applies regardless of when a monument is placed.

But not under the circumstances and intent under which a monument is placed. A monument placed to reflect the history of religion in legal tradition would be permissible. As it reflects the historic traditions rather than advocacy of a particular religious belief. Thus, religious figures like Moses in federal art would be valid if Moses played the role of 'law giver' rather than the role of 'prophet'.

Moore's situation was different. The monument wasn't placed in the context of the State's history and legal tradition. But as an explicit act of religious expression. Moore was the self proclaimed '10 Commandment judge', who placed the monument of his own design as '"the moral foundation of law" and reflecting "the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men."

Moore also insisted that all secular wording on the monument be placed on the sides of the monument rather than the front because "these statements were the words of mere men and could not be placed on the same plane as the Word of God."

Another acknowledgement of the expressly religious intent of the monument rather than one of historical context of law.

A point Moore made ludicriously clear in his own description of what purpose the monument serves:

[The monument] serves to remind the Appellate Courts and judges of the Circuit and District Court of this State and members of the bar who appear before them, as well as the people of Alabama who visit the Alabama Judicial Building, of the truth stated in the Preamble to the Alabama Constitution that in order to establish justice we must invoke 'the favor and guidance of almighty God.

With Moore at the installation ceremony expressing what he hoped the new monument would do:

"....this day marks the beginning of the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and a return to the knowledge of God in our land."

A clearer religious intent couldn't be expressed. And it was this specific circumstances and intent that the Federal Courts took issue wtih in their ruling:

Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.

http://morallaw.org/PDF/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf

Its not the 10 commandments specifically that are forbidden under the Establishment Clause. But an express and explicit religious intent by State officials on State ground, using their State authority that's forbidden under the Establishment Clause.

With the Supreme Court itself denying Moore's appeal and allowing lower court rulings to stand on the matter. Meaning that even according to the Supreme Court, Moore's placement of the monument didn't meet their standards of permissibly under the Establishment Clause.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

14.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

18 had SSCM not as a result of federal court action.

That includes California. Even though it was based on a Federal District Court ruling it was the State that decided not to appeal and therefore it was State action that allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

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

18 had SSCM not as a result of federal court action.

That includes California. Even though it was based on a Federal District Court ruling it was the State that decided not to appeal and therefore it was State action that allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.


>>>>

I would not include california, as it was a court action against a proposition, i.e., the will of the people, even if that will had changed.

To me the only ones that count are states that modifed the marriage contract by either 1)legislative action or 2)proposition.