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

[Silhouette]

That's not the important question.

 

[Silhouette]

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Let's say for argument's sake that a Supreme Court Justice was qualified to officiate at a wedding in MD. That isn't the problem. The problem was the Justice doing so at a gay wedding as an inescapable embodiment of the federal government, while the question of "should the federal government preside over states on blessing gay marriage?" was pending before her Court. Massey Coal 2009 says that any judge displaying discernable bias on a question of law pending before their Court may not preside as a judge on that question of law. They must mandatorily recuse themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

For those who marked "funny" on the OP: What is funny about children being forced as a new institution that they had no voice in, indeed were barred from representation at the Table, that systematically deprives them for life of either a mother or father?

What do you want to speculate on the preponderence of "gay" litigants petitioning the Court this year who grew up with regular contact with both a mother and a father? My best guess is that most if not all of them did.

So by your logic, no one should be allowed to get a divorce and no divorcees should be allowed to get remarried, because, hey, the kids didn't have any say in any of that shit.

Reality- Gay folks had kids before this ruling, they will have them afterwards.

Learn to deal.

 

[bodecea]

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Let's say for argument's sake that a Supreme Court Justice was qualified to officiate at a wedding in MD. That isn't the problem. The problem was the Justice doing so at a gay wedding as an inescapable embodiment of the federal government, while the question of "should the federal government preside over states on blessing gay marriage?" was pending before her Court. Massey Coal 2009 says that any judge displaying discernable bias on a question of law pending before their Court may not preside as a judge on that question of law. They must mandatorily recuse themselves.

Actually the ones who should have recused themselves are any Justices who performed wedding ceremonies in any state whose restrictions against SSM were up for review by the Court....any state that already had SSM was not involved in any way.

 

[Silhouette]

Reality- Gay folks had kids before this ruling, they will have them afterwards.

Learn to deal.

Polygamists had kids too before this ruling. So did single people. So did brothers and sisters. So you're saying they all qualify for marriage benefits and tax breaks? Or do polysexuals and monosexuals or incest pairings not have rights to marry according to the very narrow preference of sexual kinks June's Decision covers?

 

[JoeB131]

Let's say for argument's sake that a Supreme Court Justice was qualified to officiate at a wedding in MD. That isn't the problem. The problem was the Justice doing so at a gay wedding as an inescapable embodiment of the federal government, while the question of "should the federal government preside over states on blessing gay marriage?" was pending before her Court. Massey Coal 2009 says that any judge displaying discernable bias on a question of law pending before their Court may not preside as a judge on that question of law. They must mandatorily recuse themselves.

Yeah, so who are you going to appeal this to, the Supreme Court?

Hey, how is that movement to get a Federal Marriage Amendment going? Oh, that's right, it isn't.

reality check, bud. I know you are going through the five stages of grief, but you need to move past the whole "Denial" Phase and do the other four.

Here you go.

Denial "No, way, you can't make gay marriage legal. There has to be some legal trick to keep it from happening!!!"

Anger "THis isn't the America I love anymore!!!! Damned Gays."

Depression "Whoa is me, gays can get married."

Bargaining 'Okay, you can have the gay marriage, but you can't make me bake a cake!!!!" (Incidently, this is where the rest of your movement is already at....)

Acceptance - "Hey, I just realized. Gays getting married has no effect on my life because I'm a red-blooded heterosexual!!!!"

Glad to be of help, Sil.

 

[bodecea]

Reality- Gay folks had kids before this ruling, they will have them afterwards.

Learn to deal.

Polygamists had kids too before this ruling. So did single people. So did brothers and sisters. So you're saying they all qualify for marriage benefits and tax breaks? Or do polysexuals and monosexuals or incest pairings not have rights to marry according to the very narrow preference of sexual kinks June's Decision covers?

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

 

[JoeB131]

Polygamists had kids too before this ruling. So did single people. So you're saying they all qualify for marriage benefits and tax breaks? Or do polysexuals and monosexuals not have rights to marry according to the very narrow preference of sexual kinks June's Decision covers?

Personally, i have no problem with polygamists if everyone involved is a consenting adult. (The marriage part, not the family part.)

Single people who have kids ALREADY get tax breaks. they are called "Deductions".

 

[OKTexas]

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Read the qualifications for yourself, they are posted in this string. There is NO SPECULATION, period end of story.
I'm really sorry you ignorant regressives can't read, but that's not my problem.

A judge....you want us to believe that a U.S. District Court judge counts...a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge counts...but not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Ok.....denial is not just a river in Egypt I guess.

Hey folks anyone who was lucky (unlucky) enough to ever have a Supreme Court Justice do your ceremony in Maryland ...guess what? You're not really married.

Maybe you should be directing your ignorant assed bullshit to the people who actually wrote the definitions, hint, that ain't me. I've been trying to be nice even in the face of your attempts to demean me, so instead of stooping to your level, I'm done with you, you're excused.

 

[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.

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.

Do you understand the difference between the word "wrote" and "signed"?

 

[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.

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.

Honey, you are a fucking idiot.

 

[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.

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.

So, you use a dictionary, written today, to determine the meaning of the constitution. You think it is so easy that a moron like you can figure it out? It it sad that useless pieces of shit like you get to vote.

 

[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.

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.

like you speak for most people.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

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

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?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

Looks like you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Impeach what? There's nothing to impeach if the testimony hasn't been given. You fail again.

None of this is testimony dumb fuck. You wanted to make a funny and made an ass of yourself.

 

[Faun]

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

The mess in his head. For some reason, he blames the Supreme Court for that.

Interesting content, really it is.

So what is the societal safety net that remained after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergfell?

You can do something no one else has been able to do.......

You say that as if your argument hasn't been thoroughly and utterly destroyed.

It hasn't, and it appears you don't have the ability to do so.

But good luck with that

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Read the qualifications for yourself, they are posted in this string. There is NO SPECULATION, period end of story.
I'm really sorry you ignorant regressives can't read, but that's not my problem.

You started with speculation- and that is all you have. I am sorry you Conservatives are so ignorant, but I have come to expect that from that from you here on USMB.

You speculated that she did not have the legal authorization to marry someone in Maryland.

I pointed out how she could indeed have had the legal authorization- and then challenged you to do more than the typical Conservative smear job.

So rather than speculate- show that she did not legally perform the marriage that has your panties in a wad.

 

[Silhouette]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

 

[Syriusly]

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

Backtracking?

LOL.

As I said-

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

 

[Syriusly]

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Let's say for argument's sake that a Supreme Court Justice was qualified to officiate at a wedding in MD. That isn't the problem. The problem was the Justice doing so at a gay wedding as an inescapable embodiment of the federal government, while the question of "should the federal government preside over states on blessing gay marriage?" was pending before her Court. Massey Coal 2009 says that any judge displaying discernable bias on a question of law pending before their Court may not preside as a judge on that question of law. They must mandatorily recuse themselves.

Says you.

Since the only person who can decide whether a justice should recuse him or herself is- ta da - the justice- your opinion is merely your opinion.