SCOTUS divided over SSM

[JoeB131]

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Guy, we are going to bring you red state inbred idiots into the 21st century whether you like it or not.

 

[martybegan]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Of course, there are states that allow 14 year-olds to marry and there are states that allow first cousins to marry. And other states have to recognize the validity of those marriages.

Your disdain for process and rules has been noted several times. If we want to change the document, we use the amendment process, not the whims of some un-elected lawyers.

On your second point, you get no argument from me.

Of course the Supreme Court doesn't change the Constitution- the Supreme Court decides questions of constitutional law- like it has 3 times before in issues regarding the Constitutionality of state marriage laws.

Then tell me where the right to an abortion is, or the right to same sex marriage is, in the document? Not implied in a 5 step mental exercise in the brain of some well meaning, but idiot lawyer.

 

[martybegan]

Your disdain for process and rules has been noted several times. If we want to change the document, we use the amendment process, not the whims of some un-elected lawyers.

On your second point, you get no argument from me.

Naw, fuck that. We are one unelected lawyer from getting whatever the fuck we want on everything.

No playing nice with you idiots.

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

 

[JoeB131]

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

 

[martybegan]

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

 

[Seawytch]

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

 

[JoeB131]

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

You mean like Heller and Citizen's United? where people passed gun control and campaign finance laws and the court threw them out?

Or do you only get angry about judicial overreach when it works against you?

 

[martybegan]

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

You mean like Heller and Citizen's United? where people passed gun control and campaign finance laws and the court threw them out?

Or do you only get angry about judicial overreach when it works against you?

Guns are actually mentioned in the document. Free speech is actually mentioned in the document. Abortion and marriage are not mentioned in the document. Free speech and arms get a far wider berth when it comes to preventing government from interfering because they are explicit. and even then they are attacked by judges who would rather legislate than adjudicate.

 

[martybegan]

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns are actually mentioned in the document.

Yes, in the context of a "Well-Regulated Militia".

Free speech is actually mentioned in the document.

Transfer of wealth is not speech. No one is preventing the Koch Brothers from speaking their mind. They just shouldn't be allowed to buy elections.

Abortion and marriage are not mentioned in the document.

No, but they can be clearly inferred from the 14th Amendments protections of individual liberty.

So cut the bullshit Marty. Your mortal fear is that we have a court that is one justice away from being a liberal court that will redefine freedom in ways you don't like.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

Marriage never included people of different races until Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage never considered women to be equals until fairly recently.

Law changes and evolves all the time. The court is just affirming where the country already is.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

Marriage never included people of different races until Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage never considered women to be equals until fairly recently.

Law changes and evolves all the time. The court is just affirming where the country already is.

Actually it did, until states passed laws making it illegal. So you had a situation where it was allowed, then it wasn't. So you had precedence where marriage was A-ok between races, then it wasn't, then the courts said it was again. You have no track record like that for gay marriage until recently.

The court is forcing states to recognize it before they are ready, and they are doing it with no standing. If time is on your side at this point, and if, as I think will happen, the court will enforce full faith and credit for legally legislatively issued marriage licenses, forcing the issue can only be attributed to hatred of people who disagree with you, nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

Guns are actually mentioned in the document.

Yes, in the context of a "Well-Regulated Militia".

Free speech is actually mentioned in the document.

Transfer of wealth is not speech. No one is preventing the Koch Brothers from speaking their mind. They just shouldn't be allowed to buy elections.

Abortion and marriage are not mentioned in the document.

No, but they can be clearly inferred from the 14th Amendments protections of individual liberty.

So cut the bullshit Marty. Your mortal fear is that we have a court that is one justice away from being a liberal court that will redefine freedom in ways you don't like.

The States get the militia, the people keep the right to arms. You keep trying that, and failing.

Its not transfer of wealth, its being allowed to address grievances, and in today's society it costs money to address your grievances.

And freedom isn't up to the government to define, its up to the government to protect when it is explicit in the document.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

 

[martybegan]

And when the people realize the government isn't responsive anymore to them, then what happens?

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

 

[danielpalos]

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

 

[martybegan]

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

 

[danielpalos]

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

 

[George Costanza]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

For decades, "society as a whole" implemented slavery, followed by a long period of racial segregation. It finally took "9 old farts in black robes" plus the federal government, to remedy this situation.

"Society as a whole" oftentimes doesn't get it right.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?