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

[Skylar]

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Its your claim. Back it.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.

I gave you the link. Dispute it drama queen

Prove that the evidence of siblings marrying is at that link.

You can't do that either. I'm starting to see why your legal predictions have a record of perfect failure: the lack of evidence.

False premis, the link takes you to the law, which shows the pairs excluded from marriage in iowa. No same sex pairings are excluded

Sorry Queenie, cry elsewhere

If its legal for siblings to marry in Maryland and Iowa....show me any marriages between siblings in Maryland or Iowa.

You can't. You're done.

 

[martybegan]

There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

 

[Pop23]

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

 

[Skylar]

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

And who says that you declaring something defines a right?

Again, you're backing pseudo-legal gibberish with pseudo-legal gibberish. With you citing yourself, citing yourself.

And when I ask you who states that rights must be enumerated to be retained by the people.......you cite yourself. Citing yourself.

Its turtles - all the way down.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

But the 14th amendment also says that the government has to give EQUAL protection under the law. Does a marriage license issued by the government provide some protections? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes....then the government has to provide those protections equally. It's quite clear.

So if Obamacare provides coverage for mamograms, I need to be covered as well? equal access and all.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.

And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.

And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?

Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.[/QUOTE]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.[/QUOTE]
Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.

 

[bodecea]

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

But the 14th amendment also says that the government has to give EQUAL protection under the law. Does a marriage license issued by the government provide some protections? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes....then the government has to provide those protections equally. It's quite clear.

So if Obamacare provides coverage for mamograms, I need to be covered as well? equal access and all.

While you don't have the same danger of breast cancer as a woman does after 40...you probably should have them covered. Men get it too.

 

[martybegan]

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

And who says that you declaring something defines a reserve right?

Again, you're backing pseudo-legal gibberish with pseudo-legal gibberish. With you citing yourself, citing yourself.

And when I ask you who states that rights must be enumerated to be retained by the people.......you cite yourself. Citing yourself.

Its turtles - all the way down.[/QUOTE]

You declare marriage is a right, its not in the document, you run to the 9th amendment for it. I do the same and you can't answer why my right (although exaggerated) doesn't count.

 

[Pop23]

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Its your claim. Back it.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.

I gave you the link. Dispute it drama queen

Prove that the evidence of siblings marrying is at that link.

You can't do that either. I'm starting to see why your legal predictions have a record of perfect failure: the lack of evidence.

False premis, the link takes you to the law, which shows the pairs excluded from marriage in iowa. No same sex pairings are excluded

Sorry Queenie, cry elsewhere

If its legal for siblings to marry in Maryland and Iowa....show me any marriages between siblings in Maryland or Iowa.

You can't. You're done.

Do your own footwork.

All I'm required to do, to blow your argument out of the water is prove legality. Which I did.

You cryin dude? Sorry I destroyed your pathetic theory.

 

[paddymurphy]

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

 

[martybegan]

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

But the 14th amendment also says that the government has to give EQUAL protection under the law. Does a marriage license issued by the government provide some protections? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes....then the government has to provide those protections equally. It's quite clear.

So if Obamacare provides coverage for mamograms, I need to be covered as well? equal access and all.

While you don't have the same danger of breast cancer as a woman does after 40...you probably should have them covered. Men get it too.

Then I guess any scholarship that restricts access based on Sex or race is wrong to then right?

 

[Skylar]

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

 

[Skylar]

144 pages, basically the thread has devolved into this:

Nah, I just don't accept you citing yourself as legal evidence of anything.

 

[paddymurphy]

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

 

[Skylar]

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

And there we go. Any ruling Marty doesn't like...he ignores. Any legal definition he doesn't like.... he ignores. Any amendment he doesn't like...he ignores. Any legal standard he doesn't like......he ignores.

Um, Marty....willful ignorance isn't a legal argument. And none of these standards vanish because you don't like them.

Are you starting to see how utterly irrelevant your arguments are to any actual case?

 

[Pop23]

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry. But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

Religion is a protected association. Sorry dude, associations are a breeze to prove.

 

[Skylar]

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

 

[Skylar]

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

Its merely why debating with Marty is pointless. He's the avatar of Confirmation Bias. As the only cases that he recognizes as valid....are those that agree with what he already beleives. Any that don't are 'invalid' and ignored.

Its like holding a pile of M&Ms, refusing to acknowledge anything red, brown, green or yellow....and then insist you've only got a handful of blue.