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

[Skylar]

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.

They had every right to marry under previous laws just as any other person of their gender and many availed themselves of that right. Behavior does not create a protected class.

There are tests to determine who belongs within each protected class. These individuals can be determined by objective and reliable tests.

How does one test "gay"?

And what relevance does determining if someone is 'gay' have with their eligibility to be married?

 

[Pop23]

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

There are no other groups that don't have some kind of test to determine that they are who they say they are.

What relevance does your 'group test' have with eligibility to be married?

Group test? All tests are given individually Derp.

And what relevance does your 'individually given' test have with eligibility to be married?

Laughing...I love trolling the trolls!

Because you can't answer the original question and prefer strawman responses does not make me the troll.....

It has the opposite effect.

 

[paddymurphy]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

 

[martybegan]

How am I a radical?

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

If i'm reacting to the drivel being pushed by the modern progressive, I wear that label with honor.

Now you've crossed over into delusion

sorry

This coming from someone that refers to themselves in the 3rd person on a message board is tragically comical.

Bob Dole

You ain't Bob Dole.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

They had every right to marry under previous laws just as any other person of their gender and many availed themselves of that right. Behavior does not create a protected class.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

 

[martybegan]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

 

[Skylar]

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

There are no other groups that don't have some kind of test to determine that they are who they say they are.

What relevance does your 'group test' have with eligibility to be married?

Group test? All tests are given individually Derp.

And what relevance does your 'individually given' test have with eligibility to be married?

Laughing...I love trolling the trolls!

Because you can't answer the original question and prefer strawman responses does not make me the troll.....

It has the opposite effect.

Laughing! So when I ask you what relevance your 'individually given' test has on the eligibility of a person to get married.......you can't answer.

Shocker.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I didn't make the claim, you did sweetie, now back it up.

Why would I care whether you accept that fact or not? Get off your lazy ass and find out for yourself.

 

[paddymurphy]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

 

[bodecea]

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.

They had every right to marry under previous laws just as any other person of their gender and many availed themselves of that right. Behavior does not create a protected class.

There are tests to determine who belongs within each protected class. These individuals can be determined by objective and reliable tests.

How does one test "gay"?

What protected classes are you referring to?

 

[martybegan]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

Then show us why nuclear arms aren't included in arms using the 'pretty simple' wording of the constitution.

If its all as simple as you pretend, this should be a cake walk. If not, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

I know which outcome I'm betting on!

there are several schools of thought on this, most of them flowing from the fact that explosives of that size were not part of what would be considered light infantry weapons. Any argument, however, says that when it comes to the 2nd amendment there has to be a high level of burden on the government to prove why a citizen should not have a specific weapon to be owned legally.

It's pretty easy to meet that burden with a nuke. Why can't I get a handgun and carry it in NYC?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

And you think this view is different than that of others? that sounds crazy. All you've done is state what everyone knows

 

[Skylar]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

Then show us why nuclear arms aren't included in arms using the 'pretty simple' wording of the constitution.

If its all as simple as you pretend, this should be a cake walk. If not, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

I know which outcome I'm betting on!

there are several schools of thought on this, most of them flowing from the fact that explosives of that size were not part of what would be considered light infantry weapons. Any argument, however, says that when it comes to the 2nd amendment there has to be a high level of burden on the government to prove why a citizen should not have a specific weapon to be owned legally.

It's pretty easy to meet that burden with a nuke. Why can't I get a handgun and carry it in NYC?

'Several schools of thought' doesn't sound 'pretty simple' at all. It actually sounds quite complex, interpretative and nuanced. Which has nothing to do with the literalist interpretation of the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

If i'm reacting to the drivel being pushed by the modern progressive, I wear that label with honor.

Now you've crossed over into delusion

sorry

This coming from someone that refers to themselves in the 3rd person on a message board is tragically comical.

Bob Dole

You ain't Bob Dole.

Nope. Dante is Dante and Bob Dole is Bob Dole

 

[martybegan]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

Then show us why nuclear arms aren't included in arms using the 'pretty simple' wording of the constitution.

If its all as simple as you pretend, this should be a cake walk. If not, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

I know which outcome I'm betting on!

there are several schools of thought on this, most of them flowing from the fact that explosives of that size were not part of what would be considered light infantry weapons. Any argument, however, says that when it comes to the 2nd amendment there has to be a high level of burden on the government to prove why a citizen should not have a specific weapon to be owned legally.

It's pretty easy to meet that burden with a nuke. Why can't I get a handgun and carry it in NYC?

'Several schools of thought' doesn't sound 'pretty simple' at all. It actually sounds quite complex, interpretative and nuanced. Which has nothing to do with the literalist interpretation of the constitution.

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

 

[martybegan]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

And you think this view is different than that of others? that sounds crazy. All you've done is state what everyone knows

I know other people think likewise, all of this is due to Skylar harping on how all of this is nothing more than my opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.