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

[bodecea]

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.

What was "made up"? You realize that all Supreme Court decisions have to be explained with the solid Constitutional basis explained. That's one reason why their Rulings are so darn long. They don't just "make stuff up".

 

[bodecea]

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.

And?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Nobody says you have to like it. You just have to obey the laws allowing it. If you don't want to get gay married,then don't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's how the system works per the Constitution. What better plan do you have?

Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.

Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?

Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.

A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.

and yet that isn't what you want when the justices rule in your favor. a "strict constructionist" would have required a well-regulated militia in writing about the 2nd amendment.

and for the record, until Rehnquist, no one expected "strict construction". that wasn't how things were done even when the founding fathers were alive (see: Marbury v Madison).

You and your daffy "definitions". "Strict constructionist" does NOT mean agreeing with you.

You just don't like that the correct, constructionist - not to mention the correct grammatical - reading of the Second Amendment doesn't say what you want it to.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No you would make a lousy lawyer, a decent lawyer would know you can only cover the subjects discussed in a direct examination, in a cross examination. OOPS YOU FAIL AGAIN! Where exactly did I say I ever had a roommate or even went to college for that matter? Like I said, you assumed facts not in evidence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.

Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?

Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.

A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.

and yet that isn't what you want when the justices rule in your favor. a "strict constructionist" would have required a well-regulated militia in writing about the 2nd amendment.

and for the record, until Rehnquist, no one expected "strict construction". that wasn't how things were done even when the founding fathers were alive (see: Marbury v Madison).

The 2nd amendment is about militias AND the peoples right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the States from keeping their own armed forces, the 2nd part makes this a reality by prohibiting the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep arms.

previous justices laughed when asked if the 2nd protected a private right of gun ownership. i'd argue they were correct because the 2nd does not SAY it protected both. it says it protects the right to a well-regulated militia being armed at a time when there was no federal standing army.

but why actually look at history?

Insofar as people have always had privately-owned guns in this country, including the Founding Fathers themselves, and no one made any attempt to round up those guns after the Second Amendment was ratified, I'm going to have to stick with the whole "you're pie-eyed insane" view I've always had of you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Only lawyers think that laws should be unintelligible to the people who have to live under them. Once upon a time, it was believed that people had a right to know and understand the laws that they were expected to abide by.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The government is forcing you to be a conservative?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Only lawyers think that laws should be unintelligible to the people who have to live under them. Once upon a time, it was believed that people had a right to know and understand the laws that they were expected to abide by.

They are only unintelligible to morons like you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Sometimes it better to look at the actual law...

Maryland Revised Statutes §2–406.
(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:
(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;
(ii) any clerk;
(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or
(iv) a judge.

GAM-Article - Family Law, Section 2-406


>>>>

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

No you would make a lousy lawyer, a decent lawyer would know you can only cover the subjects discussed in a direct examination, in a cross examination. OOPS YOU FAIL AGAIN! Where exactly did I say I ever had a roommate or even went to college for that matter? Like I said, you assumed facts not in evidence.

Cross examination is not limited to what was testified to on direct. You may cross examin to impeach.

 

[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.

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.

Who am I to argue with this?

The question I posed weeks ago is this:

What is the States Compelling interest in denying anyone their fundamental right to marriage:

Marriage does not include sexual contact as a qualification

Marriage does not include love, faithfulness, loyalty or any other emotion to qualify to marry.

Since this is a 14th amendment case, citing its equal protection clause, tell me how anyone could be excluded as participants.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You confuse "understandable" with "comprehensive", for no reason I can understand. The Constitution was never intended to be the sum total of federal law. All it does it lay down the boundaries which lesser laws must fall into. And that certainly is not mutually exclusive to the words making plain sense as written. Quite the opposite, actually.

By the way, phrases like "due process of the law" and "cruel and unusual punishment" do have set definitions, despite your belief that they're somehow murky and unintelligible. "Due process of the law" means "laws shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious." (Those words also have definitions. Get a dictionary.) "Cruel and unusual punishment" means "torture, barbarity, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community." Neither of those definitions are things that a citizen of average intelligence and education would be incapable of understanding.

Why does it take pages for Scalia to explain his position? Maybe because dipshits like you have so twisted and confused things that it takes that long to untangle it, and to address any possible new messes you might be anticipated to make. While I understand that your ability to mangle the law - or more likely, quote someone who has done so - makes you feel smarter than other people, it really just makes you a weasely sack of crap . . . like most lawyers, come to think of it. THAT would be the process that law schools teach.

 

[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

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

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So, learning about the law and legal process is not a good thing. Do you prefer your doctors to not have attended Medical School?

Yeah, because lawyers and doctors are absolutely comparable.

Maybe you should contemplate the fact that most people trust their doctors, and expect that they should be able to trust them, while very few people trust lawyers, and most people think a trustworthy lawyer is probably bad at his job.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Who am I to argue with this?

The question I posed weeks ago is this:

What is the States Compelling interest in denying anyone their fundamental right to marriage:

Marriage does not include sexual contact as a qualification

Marriage does not include love, faithfulness, loyalty or any other emotion to qualify to marry.

Since this is a 14th amendment case, citing its equal protection clause, tell me how anyone could be excluded as participants.

Why should we repeat ourselves- since you refuse to accept what anyone says other than yourself?

You have asked- and been answered.

You just don't like the answers.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

No- you aren't 'seeking'- seeking would imply a willingness to find something.

And all you find is that what you allow yourself to find.

 

[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.

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.

Who am I to argue with this?

The question I posed weeks ago is this:

What is the States Compelling interest in denying anyone their fundamental right to marriage:

Marriage does not include sexual contact as a qualification

Marriage does not include love, faithfulness, loyalty or any other emotion to qualify to marry.

Since this is a 14th amendment case, citing its equal protection clause, tell me how anyone could be excluded as participants.

Why should we repeat ourselves- since you refuse to accept what anyone says other than yourself?

You have asked- and been answered.

You just don't like the answers.

You failed to present a answer that would hold water. But you go on repeating yourself and thinking you have anything to offer

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

Of the 55 signers of the Constitution, 34 had made some study of the law. About 1/3 to 1/2 of those 34 had a different profession.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

No- you aren't 'seeking'- seeking would imply a willingness to find something.

And all you find is that what you allow yourself to find.

I seek justice for all.

Simple as that.