SCOTUS divided over SSM

[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.

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

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 a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

simply being obnoxious can be a form of assault.

 

[danielpalos]

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

The only clue here is one that isn't being caught, and that is you falling for me playing with you, much as a cat plays with some string.

i play with words all the time; the big chickens on the arbitrary and capricious Right still manage to get me banned whenever True Witness bearing is too much for them to bear.

no, words mostly play with you, and your attempt at sounding smarter than you are with the not so clever use of words and capital letters.

i would agree with you; but you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

There's that "I want to appear smart" word play again.

like it was ever very difficult; when i am the one who doesn't mind becoming more well regulated with dictionary and thesaurus militia.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

You do realize that the 9th amendment pretty much obliterates your entire line of reasoning, right?

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more". It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

It should when deemed to be arbitrary and capricious; and used merely for political propaganda and rhetoric rather than the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation merely to be Faithful to our State motto: Eureka!

 

[Syriusly]

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I'm sorry, what point was it okay for a black man to fuck a white woman where it didn't end wiht the black guy at the end of rope?

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.

Guy, there are no "rights". Andy stupid fuck who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

Oh, they did check with tthe courts, and the courts said, "Meh, lock them up. Remember Pearl Harbor."

 

[danielpalos]

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

It may when i feel any need to declaim and decry.

 

[The Rabbi]

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

The President is indirectly chosen by the people. Supreme Court justices are appointed. They are not chosen by the people at all, dum-dum.

 

[Skylar]

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

The President is indirectly chosen by the people. Supreme Court justices are appointed. They are not chosen by the people at all, dum-dum.

The Supreme Court is nominated and confirmed in the exact manner set out by the founders.

 

[JoeB131]

The President is indirectly chosen by the people. Supreme Court justices are appointed. They are not chosen by the people at all, dum-dum.

except the main reason why Obama won- women didn't want one of YOUR guys picking the Next SCOTUS justice.

It's why Hillary will win, too.

 

[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.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

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 a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

simply being obnoxious can be a form of assault.

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.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

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 a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

simply being obnoxious can be a form of assault.

Ah, you do go for the whole micro-aggression thing.

Here is a macro aggression. Please go pound sand, you mouth breathing oxygen thief.

 

[martybegan]

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

You do realize that the 9th amendment pretty much obliterates your entire line of reasoning, right?

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more". It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

It should when deemed to be arbitrary and capricious; and used merely for political propaganda and rhetoric rather than the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation merely to be Faithful to our State motto: Eureka!

So many words, so little content.

 

[martybegan]

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

 

[martybegan]

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

1st, there is no crying in message boarding, only whining, snarking, and petty temper tantrum-ing.

2nd: Yes, they have been doing something wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

1st, there is no crying in message boarding, only whining, snarking, and petty temper tantrum-ing.

2nd: Yes, they have been doing something wrong.

You dissent with some of their decisions. Usually a minority of judges do. That doesn't mean that the court is violating any of legal rights or mandates or whatever you wish to accuse them of.

 

[hortysir]

Heard a radio commentary yesterday talking about how, based on Robert's line of questions, it may wind up being 6-3 to allow

 

[martybegan]

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.

I'm sorry, what point was it okay for a black man to fuck a white woman where it didn't end wiht the black guy at the end of rope?

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.

Guy, there are no "rights". Andy stupid fuck who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

Oh, they did check with tthe courts, and the courts said, "Meh, lock them up. Remember Pearl Harbor."

You are confusing lawlessness with laws on the books, and in the beginning of the US there were no laws regarding miscegenation until they were added before, during and after the civil war.

And rights exist, they are inherent. And your example proves case in point how courts that over-step their bounds can be a danger to us all.

 

[martybegan]

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

The Supreme Court justices are indirectly chosen by the People, and there is no enforceable mandate to hold them to except to amend the Constitution, or eventually replace the judges.

Just because the Court makes you cry doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

1st, there is no crying in message boarding, only whining, snarking, and petty temper tantrum-ing.

2nd: Yes, they have been doing something wrong.

You dissent with some of their decisions. Usually a minority of judges do. That doesn't mean that the court is violating any of legal rights or mandates or whatever you wish to accuse them of.

Yes, it does, if its part of an overall trend going back 50 years.

 

[Seawytch]

Heard a radio commentary yesterday talking about how, based on Robert's line of questions, it may wind up being 6-3 to allow

Well...I think Robert's will try to walk a fine line. I think it could be that to strike down the rest of DOMA and allow for FF&C for marriage licenses issued to same gender couples, but I dunno about the "all the way ruling". That would be narrower, 5-4 likely.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'm sorry, what point was it okay for a black man to fuck a white woman where it didn't end wiht the black guy at the end of rope?

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.

Guy, there are no "rights". Andy stupid fuck who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

Oh, they did check with tthe courts, and the courts said, "Meh, lock them up. Remember Pearl Harbor."

You are confusing lawlessness with laws on the books, and in the beginning of the US there were no laws regarding miscegenation until they were added before, during and after the civil war.

And rights exist, they are inherent. And your example proves case in point how courts that over-step their bounds can be a danger to us all.

The most fundamental of rights is equality. If you make it a legal right for a man to marry a woman, but you deny a woman the right to marry a woman,

you have violated the right of the woman to equality, based on her gender, and you have done so without proving there is an overriding compelling interest that the government has to protect that warrants such discrimination.