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

[Pop23]

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?

If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?

Too much to ask?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So it was 17.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.

No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.

And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?

And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

You can have all the delusions you want. This is a free nation.

However none of your delusions are reality.

If they were then marriage equality wouldn't be the law of the land now.

As I said, you don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

Gays will forever have the legal right to get married in America and no amount of your whining will stop it.

Now find something else to whine about because this one is very old and tired.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You can have all the delusions you want. This is a free nation.

However none of your delusions are reality.

If they were then marriage equality wouldn't be the law of the land now.

As I said, you don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

Gays will forever have the legal right to get married in America and no amount of your whining will stop it.

Now find something else to whine about because this one is very old and tired.

Then ignore it?

Is that so hard?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Really, what religion does the 10 commandments establish?

Once again, from your link?
My B/U

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,

There is no time line restriction on that.

 

[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?

14.

Don't think so, you got a list and how it was adopted.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.

No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.

And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?

And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.

Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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?

Nope. Both made public statements against gays, showing a clear anti gay bias.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Black letter text? Like this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Denying gay people the ability to marry denies them equal protection of the law. It relegates them and their relationships to a lesser status. And it denies them "liberty". That is black letter law. Too bad you are not bright enough to understand these concepts and how they apply to the world we live in.

 

[Syriusly]

It's very sad, yet amusing that you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. You can conflate the race based laws and the same sex based laws, with the incest based laws all you want. But doing so does not make for a compelling argument or a rational one.

The state has already demonstrated it's interest. That is why there are anti-incest marriage laws on the books, but...

Incest, which is sexual relations between (non-spouse) family members, is outlawed in most countries, including the United States. Incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family, and to prevent the genetic problems that often occur in babies whose parents are related.

In the U.S., incest is regulated by state, not federal law, and every state has one or more laws banning this problematic behavior. And while states sometimes vary in defining ..

What is “Family?”
For the purposes of incest laws, “family” can mean several things...

Prosecution and Defenses
Often, a situation involving incest also implicates other criminal laws. For example...

Consent not a defense
A defendant may be convicted of engaging in incest if he knowingly engaged in a sexual encounter with a family member (if no encounter actually took place, the prosecutor may charge the defendant with attempted incest). Because of this...

Who is charged?
Although the ages of the parties are not relevant in proving that incest took place (and are not a defense to such charges), the age of the parties may be relevant as far as who is prosecuted for the crime. For example...

Old cases and the statute of limitations
All states set time periods in which a crime may be prosecuted, such as five or ten years after the incident. Such laws are intended to ensure that cases are handled relatively quickly, and recognize the danger in prosecuting old cases where the facts may be difficult to discern. In some states... -
Incest Laws and Criminal Charges | Nolo.com
​

and this case...

Generally, in cases like this involving “consensual activity within the home,” it comes down to the question of whether the government has “a compelling state interest” in regulating the activity. “Some courts recognize that the government does have an interest in regulating incestuous conduct because of the risk of pregnancy and the heightened risk of genetic defect,” he says. Other courts will convict even without such a risk: In Ohio, a sexual battery statute states that a stepparent should never have sexual contact with a stepchild (and that is regardless of age). Most courts are concerned about parents preying on their children, he said. “Regardless of the age of the child, there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.” That explains why the daughter isn’t charged in this case. “The idea is the perpetrator is the parent and the victim is the child. We don’t normally prosecute a person falling within the protected class, and you remain a member of the protected class even above age of consent.” -
The law on “consensual” incest
​

The burdon of proof is now on the state to prove it has a compelling state interest TO DENY this fundimental right.

Silly Pops.

There is no burden of proof on the state now.

Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?

The State has no burden of proving anything.

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.

But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Like I said- Big hat- no cattle.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Don't think so, you got a list and how it was adopted.

Don't give a fuck what you think. You think I am wrong, prove it or fuck off.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

^^^^ pervert thinks all heterosexual only want to jump their relatives.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Black letter text? Like this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Denying gay people the ability to marry denies them equal protection of the law. It relegates them and their relationships to a lesser status. And it denies them "liberty". That is black letter law. Too bad you are not bright enough to understand these concepts and how they apply to the world we live in.

And of course you have perfected the "gay" test that proves it actually exists.

If I need to determine the race or gender of an individual, there are tests that are extremely reliable. We don't simply take the word of that individual.

 

[bodecea]

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?

If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?

Too much to ask?

I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.

No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.

And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?

And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.

Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.

By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.

There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?

 

[Pop23]

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.

But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Like I said- all hat- no cattle.

Like I said ^^^^ dudes a perv

You just can't stop posting about sex and incest.

Hey Derp, the only one discussing it in your post is everyone but me

Another fail by the king of fails

You can't make this shit up folks.

 

[Pop23]

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?

If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?

Too much to ask?

I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?

It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Big hat- no cattle.

Do you mean All hat, no cattle?