SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Delta4Embassy]

There an expected decision date?

 

[RKMBrown]

It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.

There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.

Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.

Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?

Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

 

[martybegan]

It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.

Funny how the justices saw the mom's right to life & liberty as overriding the child's right to life & liberty. Yeah ok, it's not funny.

It is even less funny how the Right prefers to create more costs in favor of the coercive use of force of the State while complaining about social spending on the last wealthy.

Yeah cause spending money defending a life against patricide is less worthy than redistributing my income to your pocket. ROFL put your beggars hat away and get a job.

only the right prefers to appeal to ignorance of an ounce of prevention that could lower our tax burden and prevent any need for any form of abortion in modern times--but for ideology from the Iron Age, and without any morals tests on for-profit basis in modern and secular and temporal times.

What the hell are you talking about?

Nothing, same as what he is thinking.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.

Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.

Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?

Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There an expected decision date?

It will most likely be released the last working day of the current term which is the last business day in June.


>>>>

 

[hortysir]

Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.

Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?

Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Similar to being anti-slavery while enacting constriction?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.

Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.

No they invoked the right of privacy which was well established.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.

Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?

Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

 

[danielpalos]

Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?

Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

 

[RKMBrown]

Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.

sometimes we have to "harass a Judge" for our Cause to overcome any ideological entrenchment on the part of the Right, that they always confuse with morals when perpetuated on a longitudinal basis.

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL What an ignorant partisan ass you are. Authoritarians from both parties are pro-this drug war. It's not a left vs. right thing it's a liberty vs. authority thing.

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism.

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

did you miss this with your, nothing but diversion; it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

 

[Skylar]

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".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

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.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dude put down the bong it's frying your brain.

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

did you miss this with your, nothing but diversion; it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

 

[danielpalos]

sure; just too much of a moral challenge, like usual for the Right.

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

did you miss this with your, nothing but diversion; it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

not at all; why should the left take the right seriously regarding morals in any public venues when they are willing to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are babbling on incoherently. Find help.

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

did you miss this with your, nothing but diversion; it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

not at all; why should the left take the right seriously regarding morals in any public venues when they are willing to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

Futher, the drug war has nothing to do with same sex marriage. You are merely deflecting.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but diversion due to a lack of a clue and a Cause; i got it.

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

did you miss this with your, nothing but diversion; it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

not at all; why should the left take the right seriously regarding morals in any public venues when they are willing to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

Futher, the drug war has nothing to do with same sex marriage. You are merely deflecting.

like i said already, there is no reason for the left to take the right seriously regarding morals.

 

[toxicmedia]

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".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

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.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

Everything is not a right, on that I'd agree.

But doesn't the constitution say something about rights, if some Americans have them, that everyone should have them?

This is quite simple, make marriage between 2 adult humans legal.

Simple, let's move on

 

[RKMBrown]

I made my point, that authoritarians of both parties are prosecuting the war on drugs. You have made no point at all. Just blah blah accusations of diversion. Hey dumb ass. You are the one diverting by attempting to blame the right for a war on drugs that has effing nothing to do with same sex marriage.

did you miss this with your, nothing but diversion; it is an ideological thing; and, it is the Right that prefers to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

not at all; why should the left take the right seriously regarding morals in any public venues when they are willing to be infidel, protestant , and renegade to a Bible while claiming to be for moral forms of absolutism especially regarding the drug war.

Your comments are nothing more than gibberish. They lack any recognizable form of sentence structure from any known language.

As I stated already. The left and the right are filled with authoritarians who are prosecuting this drug war. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a liberty vs. authority issue. Libertarians are on the RIGHT. Libertarians are for ending the drug war. Democrats are not for ending the drug war.

Futher, the drug war has nothing to do with same sex marriage. You are merely deflecting.

like i said already, there is no reason for the left to take the right seriously regarding morals.

And why would the right take the left seriously regarding morals? For that matter why should anyone be giving a shit about the morals being espoused by the left or the right? Shouldn't this be a free country?