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

[paddymurphy]

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.

You mean the process established by lawyers for lawyers, couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest there.

And what profession do you think those who wrote the constitution practiced? They were lawyers you stupid shit.

Not all of them....Franklin wasn't...Washington wasn't.

They did not write a word of the constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia: Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Here is what one of the founders actually wrote, in Federalist # 78:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . .

[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."
Bet you feel pretty stupid now, don't you? What with your "Only lawyers say it needs to be interpreted, the folks that wrote it said it says what it says, plain and simple."

Judges ascertained the meaning of the Constitution a couple of centuries ago, where exactly do modern judges get the authority to alter that definition?

What about your lie about the founders not wanting it to be interpreted? Just gonna ignore that? And not every part of the constitution has been interpreted and different facts are presented. The second amendment was only recently held to apply to private ownership of guns. The court never decided on the merits an equal protection and due process challenge to the laws banning gay marriage which were all passed in the last thirty years. Try again.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You mean the process established by lawyers for lawyers, couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest there.

Not all the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers....but they still set up the Supreme Law of the Land.

And that would be contrary to the traditions of a legislature how? The discussion was on the current legal process, taught to lawyers, not the writing of the Constitution.

 

[Pop23]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

So, the one blow job you gave your roommate in college made you gay forever?

There ya go, assuming facts not in evidence. You'd make a really bad lawyer.

I am, in fact, an excellent lawyer. And I am permitted to ask a question like that on cross examination. Interesting that you have not denied it and, in fact, referred to it as a fact, just not one in evidence yet.

 

[paddymurphy]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

And everyone of those marriage laws no longer include language limiting marriage to a man and woman. That looks muting language is now invalid.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You mean the process established by lawyers for lawyers, couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest there.

Not all the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers....but they still set up the Supreme Law of the Land.

And that would be contrary to the traditions of a legislature how? The discussion was on the current legal process, taught to lawyers, not the writing of the Constitution.

Oh, was it?

 

[Pop23]

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?

so you make a decision every day not to have sex with men?

No, that really isn't the point is it. The argument is that this was a gender discrimination case. If it was, then how can 95% of the entire population not feel discriminated against. It's a small percent claiming they can't participate, yet their is no objective and reliable test to prove who they say they are?

Seems absurd that this is the only discrimination case that had a class of people who can't prove the condition exists.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Why would one have to do that?

First cousins in Wisconsin must prove they are eligible, by a objective and reliable test.

 

[bodecea]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

 

[Pop23]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia: Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, 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?

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia: Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

The issue is whether or no there is and there clearly is. Those were personal opinions disguised as judicial opinions

 

[Rambunctious]

So much Butt hurt by Conservatives in this thread.

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

No what we fear is a tyrannical government forcing the acceptance of a dirty disgusting life style.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

Gays are getting married in all 50 states. Now, you are obviously free to sit there and wallow in denial and misery because you don't like that fact all you want, but regardless of what you claim, they can and will continue to get married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
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:

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.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

what does it matter that they are "un-elected?"
what does it matter that they were lawyers - and are now supreme court jurists?

and their dissent does not mean they believe the decision to be "illegal," it just means they think it's wrong

Who said anything about it being illegal? It's unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to faze progressives when they go after something they want.

What it means that unless something is clearly unconstitutional, the State or federal legislatures have final say over laws.

hint... if the court says it's constitutional it is, by definition, constitutional.

you people need to stop

Only in your diseased mind is "Constitutional" defined as "whatever we can get five Justices to make up".

YOU people need to stop.

 

[OKTexas]

Their behaviors or the person?[/Q

The person.

Really, you got a link to those statements?

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia: Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

 

[Arianrhod]

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

what does it matter that they are "un-elected?"
what does it matter that they were lawyers - and are now supreme court jurists?

and their dissent does not mean they believe the decision to be "illegal," it just means they think it's wrong

Who said anything about it being illegal? It's unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to faze progressives when they go after something they want.

What it means that unless something is clearly unconstitutional, the State or federal legislatures have final say over laws.

hint... if the court says it's constitutional it is, by definition, constitutional.

you people need to stop

Only in your diseased mind is "Constitutional" defined as "whatever we can get five Justices to make up".

We're working on getting the decision in No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 overturned.

 

[bodecea]

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

 

[bodecea]

So much Butt hurt by Conservatives in this thread.

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

No what we fear is a tyrannical government forcing the acceptance of a dirty disgusting life style.

I'm sorry that you feel that the government is going to FORCE you to be anything you already are not.