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

[Procrustes Stretched]

i'm pretty sure marty is a he.

but that doesn't make him any more correct on this issue.

I always thought Marty was a butch lesbian.

oh well

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

We have laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion. Kim Davis claimed that she is being denied her right to her faith. How can she prove she is a Christian? How can any person claiming that they were discriminated against based on their faith prove that they are of that faith? What objective evidence is there of your faith?

 

[bodecea]

I don't care for the politics of Gay and Lesbians. For the most part they are willing to crush our nation in order to feel normal and be excepted into our society. They run to the polls and race to big government for every instance of negativity that crosses their path. They are a problem because of that.
I love this country and hate to see it corrupted in this way. It is a state issue not a federal one. Our highest court in the land was sullied beyond repair so gays can force you and me to except their life style. That would be easier to do if they weren't so militaristic and radical.
Be an American first! everything else comes in second.
Gay men and women know the Supreme court was dead wrong but because it worked out their way they are fine with it. That is a very dangerous attitude.

1. I don't care much for the politics of those who wish to keep minorities from equal treatment under the law.
2. 2-5% of the population is going to "crush our nation"? Wow! What a powerful group, these gays!
3. "They run to the polls"...yes, that's part of our system of government, running to polls.
4. Race to big government....yes, that's part of our system to seek redress of discrimination thru our government systems whether it be elections or the court.
5. "they are a problem because of that"....THAT being, using the systems for seeking redress established by our Founders apparently
6. I love this country and am glad to see, once again, that equal civil rights for ALL law-abiding, tax-paying citizens has prevailed.
7. States and state laws are subservient to the Constitution and its Amendments. It IS our system.
8. How is our Highest court sullied, when Justices are picked using the very system passed down to us by our Founders?
9. Sorry to hear that gays are FORCING you to be gay.
10. Gays are "so militaristic"....I love it!
11. Be an American first! I agree. I am an American and expect to be treated equally under the law. See how that works?
12. Gay men and women are delighted to see that the Constitutional system worked.
13. Perhaps a dangerous attitude for the bigots among us.
14. Have a nice day.

 

[bodecea]

I don't care for the politics of Gay and Lesbians. For the most part they are willing to crush our nation in order to feel normal and be excepted into our society. They run to the polls and race to big government for every instance of negativity that crosses their path. They are a problem because of that.
I love this country and hate to see it corrupted in this way. It is a state issue not a federal one. Our highest court in the land was sullied beyond repair so gays can force you and me to except their life style. That would be easier to do if they weren't so militaristic and radical.
Be an American first! everything else comes in second.
Gay men and women know the Supreme court was dead wrong but because it worked out their way they are fine with it. That is a very dangerous attitude.

who is "crushing our nation"?

Apparently hoards of militaristic gays.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

Actually when it comes to race- that is exactly what we do.

Tell me more about these tests which can 'prove' someone is Asian or Caucasian or Black.

And then tell us about the tests we use to prove the religion of someone.

 

[Syriusly]

So much Butt hurt by Conservatives in this thread.

They still fear that someone will force them to marry a gay person.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Scalia's opinion was not for the majority. It was for a plurality. It was joined by Justice Breyer who wrote separately and on a more narrow basis. When there is a split like this, the narrower holding is considered binding. And Breyer acknowledged the religious character of the Ten Commandments text but then Breyer evaluated the text’s religious character in light of the setting and the monument’s origins. A primarily secular organization had donated the monument as part of a campaign against juvenile delinquency, and the display was part of a larger, outdoor setting that included other commemorative markers. Another key factor in Breyer’s opinion was that the Texas monument had generated little controversy during the 40 years it had stood on the Capitol’s grounds. Breyer reasoned that an order to remove the Texas monument – and dozens of similar monuments across the country – would inevitably generate clashes and “thereby create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.

Van Orden was decided the same day as MCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucy and held that the recent display of the ten commandments in classrooms was done for a religious purpose and violate the establishment clause.

Different situations, one was done in the intimate setting of a class room where there was an authority figure present, the others in a public area for general display.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Thanks, now how do we know that "gay" exists?

How do we know that Christians exist?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

Then you can prove Christianity by an objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You might have a modicum of credibility if you were at least honest enough to acknowledge that there is another side to the issue of children. In stead you just use as pawns them to further your bigoted agenda

Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate

When the Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage next week, much of the debate will revolve around children. Opponents have long argued that kids' best interests require both a mom and a dad. Recently, however, more children of same-sex couples have started speaking out for themselves.

Two years ago, a video of a young man testifying in the Iowa Legislature went viral.

"Good evening, Mr. Chairman," the young man said. "My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women."

Wahls told lawmakers he was a top student and an Eagle Scout — and that "the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."

Steve Majors of the Family Equality Council says the gay advocacy group saw Wahls' video as "just the tip of the iceberg." The group filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court highlighting the stories of people like him — the first generation raised by openly gay and lesbian parents.

Pediatrics Group Backs Gay Marriage, Saying It Helps Children

The American Academy of Pediatrics declared its support for same-sex marriage for the first time on Thursday, saying that allowing gay and lesbian parents to marry if they so choose is in the best interests of their children. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/health/american-academy-of-pediatrics-backs-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

 

[bodecea]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

No...he's right. There is only marriage now. We don't have to distinguish...all equal under the law as it should be.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Scalia's opinion was not for the majority. It was for a plurality. It was joined by Justice Breyer who wrote separately and on a more narrow basis. When there is a split like this, the narrower holding is considered binding. And Breyer acknowledged the religious character of the Ten Commandments text but then Breyer evaluated the text’s religious character in light of the setting and the monument’s origins. A primarily secular organization had donated the monument as part of a campaign against juvenile delinquency, and the display was part of a larger, outdoor setting that included other commemorative markers. Another key factor in Breyer’s opinion was that the Texas monument had generated little controversy during the 40 years it had stood on the Capitol’s grounds. Breyer reasoned that an order to remove the Texas monument – and dozens of similar monuments across the country – would inevitably generate clashes and “thereby create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.

Van Orden was decided the same day as MCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucy and held that the recent display of the ten commandments in classrooms was done for a religious purpose and violate the establishment clause.

Different situations, one was done in the intimate setting of a class room where there was an authority figure present, the others in a public area for general display.

If you actually bother to read both decisions you could comment intelligently on what they hold. Try that.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.
5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.
Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

And it took the Supreme Court in Heller page after page to decipher the language of the Second Amendment; to explain what damn near every word meant. So much for black letter law that only needs to be applied. It has to be interpreted. Five justices have one interpretation and four have another. Just like in Obergefell.

Only lawyers say it needs to be interpreted, the folks that wrote it said it says what it says, plain and simple. Their intent was to keep it so simple even the least educated farmer could understand it, then lawyers got involved. Not for the good either.

 

[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?

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

Their behaviors or the person?[/Q

The person.

Really, you got a link to those statements?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.

5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.

The 5th amendment restricts government action. It doesn't speak of 'self defense'. I just checked...there's no mention of it. It merely prevents the government from doing something without due process of law.

Show me where in the constitution that 'right to self defense with a fire arm' is mentioned. Specifically, literally and explicitly. So far your efforts have been rather......subjective and intepretative. And fail your 'letter of the constitution' standard utterly.

I'll even help. Here's the entire transcript of the Constitution:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Here's the entire transcript of the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Show me. Don't tell me.

Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

And where does the constitution make any mention of the 'knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain' in the right to bear arms? There's no mention of any of the interpretive jibber jabber you just offered.

Your standard is 'letter of the constitution'. Show me where nuclear weapons aren't arms under the constitution.....using the letter of the constitution. Not you citing you.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to define 'unreasonable' using the 'letter of the constitution' if its 'pretty clear'.

Show me. Don't tell me.

It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments. And the 5th says any warrantless is unreasonable.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.
5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.
Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

And it took the Supreme Court in Heller page after page to decipher the language of the Second Amendment; to explain what damn near every word meant. So much for black letter law that only needs to be applied. It has to be interpreted. Five justices have one interpretation and four have another. Just like in Obergefell.

Only lawyers say it needs to be interpreted, the folks that wrote it said it says what it says, plain and simple. Their intent was to keep it so simple even the least educated farmer could understand it, then lawyers got involved. Not for the good either.

Explain what due process means. Explain what cruel and unusual punishment is. Explain what probable cause is. If all you need to the plain language, why did it take Scalia pages and pages to explain what the Second Amendment means? While I understand why folks like you, uneducated in the law and not bright to begin with fear having to actually explain what the words in the constitution mean that is why we have law schools where folks can learn the process.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.

5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.

The 5th amendment restricts government action. It doesn't speak of 'self defense'. I just checked...there's no mention of it. It merely prevents the government from doing something without due process of law.

Show me where in the constitution that 'right to self defense with a fire arm' is mentioned. Specifically, literally and explicitly. So far your efforts have been rather......subjective and intepretative. And fail your 'letter of the constitution' standard utterly.

I'll even help. Here's the entire transcript of the Constitution:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Here's the entire transcript of the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Show me. Don't tell me.

Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

And where does the constitution make any mention of the 'knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain' in the right to bear arms? There's no mention of any of the interpretive jibber jabber you just offered.

Your standard is 'letter of the constitution'. Show me where nuclear weapons aren't arms under the constitution.....using the letter of the constitution. Not you citing you.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to define 'unreasonable' using the 'letter of the constitution' if its 'pretty clear'.

Show me. Don't tell me.

It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments.

It is mentioned in the constitution. What does it mean? And what do you think the 9th and 10th actually mean?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Their behaviors or the person?[/Q

The person.

Really, you got a link to those statements?

I posted it earlier. Go find it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Ok, LMAO