SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Seawytch]

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.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

They have the precedence of millenia of marriage law, something Justice Kennedy referenced during arguments.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

They have the precedence of millenia of marriage law, something Justice Kennedy referenced during arguments.

The "appeal to tradition"? Logical fallacy and certainly not valid in a court of law.

 

[bodecea]

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

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

They have the precedence of millenia of marriage law, something Justice Kennedy referenced during arguments.

So NOW you want our Supreme Court to consider outside the U.S. law. Interesting.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.

For race based marriage, prisoners, and child support issues. As much as you want to make them the same as SSM, they are not. NONE of these involved overriding and fundamental changes to the marriage contract.

 

[martybegan]

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

They have the precedence of millenia of marriage law, something Justice Kennedy referenced during arguments.

So NOW you want our Supreme Court to consider outside the U.S. law. Interesting.

or you can go with hundreds of years of american law.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

'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.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

 

[martybegan]

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.

For race based marriage, prisoners, and child support issues. As much as you want to make them the same as SSM, they are not. NONE of these involved overriding and fundamental changes to the marriage contract.

So there is a right for a convicted murderer on death row to marry, but not gays?

What "fundamental change" occurred to the marriage contract now that I'm legally married?

 

[martybegan]

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

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.

For race based marriage, prisoners, and child support issues. As much as you want to make them the same as SSM, they are not. NONE of these involved overriding and fundamental changes to the marriage contract.

So there is a right for a convicted murderer on death row to marry, but not gays?

What "fundamental change" occurred to the marriage contract now that I'm legally married?

Question 1, yes, unless your state or the state you get married in changed the contract by legislative means.

Question 2: You know the fundamental change, but are too dense or too ideological to admit it. SSM was never even considered except for the past 20 years or so as even a concept by the society as a whole.

 

[bodecea]

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

They have the precedence of millenia of marriage law, something Justice Kennedy referenced during arguments.

So NOW you want our Supreme Court to consider outside the U.S. law. Interesting.

or you can go with hundreds of years of american law.

Like the laws that state that blacks have no rights? Or laws that state that women are chattel? Or laws that allow child labor? Fun laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

They have the precedence of millenia of marriage law, something Justice Kennedy referenced during arguments.

So NOW you want our Supreme Court to consider outside the U.S. law. Interesting.

or you can go with hundreds of years of american law.

And we're back to the "appeal to tradition" fallacy. We had hundreds of years of women having no rights, blacks being property, exploitation of workers, etc.

"This is the way we've always done it" isn't an argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Nonsense.

That you 'disapprove' of how the Court has ruled because their decisions conflict with your subjective, partisan agenda in no way constitutes rights being 'violated.'

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.

For race based marriage, prisoners, and child support issues. As much as you want to make them the same as SSM, they are not. NONE of these involved overriding and fundamental changes to the marriage contract.

So there is a right for a convicted murderer on death row to marry, but not gays?

What "fundamental change" occurred to the marriage contract now that I'm legally married?

Question 1, yes, unless your state or the state you get married in changed the contract by legislative means.

Question 2: You know the fundamental change, but are too dense or too ideological to admit it. SSM was never even considered except for the past 20 years or so as even a concept by the society as a whole.

Lucky for us gays, your opinion isn't supported by a logical argument or precedent.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

 

[martybegan]

it violates the rights of the people via their state legislatures to regulate their marriage contracts.

Just like they did in Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. There IS precedent.

For race based marriage, prisoners, and child support issues. As much as you want to make them the same as SSM, they are not. NONE of these involved overriding and fundamental changes to the marriage contract.

So there is a right for a convicted murderer on death row to marry, but not gays?

What "fundamental change" occurred to the marriage contract now that I'm legally married?

Question 1, yes, unless your state or the state you get married in changed the contract by legislative means.

Question 2: You know the fundamental change, but are too dense or too ideological to admit it. SSM was never even considered except for the past 20 years or so as even a concept by the society as a whole.

Lucky for us gays, your opinion isn't supported by a logical argument or precedent.

Only in your opinion, and the opinion of others (like progressive SC justices and Circuit court justices) that place want and hope over actual legal arguments.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Will your marriage get destroyed when "marriage" means "a financial arrangement open to any member of society"?

No of course not. My wife and I and us alone define our marriage. I could give a shit what you think of it or what you say it is.

 

[martybegan]

Again, its based on your assumption and burning desire that same sex and opposite sex marriage are equal despite marriage law not saying so. The only argument that is valid is full faith and credit across state lines, and when it comes to legislatively changed marriage contracts, I don't disagree.

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you've completely abandoned the thread. When and if you want to discuss gay marriage or the USSC case, feel free to join us.

You are free to place me on ignore at your option.

That would be you're right to opt out, just like gays opt out of traditional marriage.

It's ok, I will not question your decision.

I'm free to discuss the topic of the thread: The USSC ruling on same sex marriage. You're free to abandon the topic of the thread and run from it like it were on fire.

As clearly this topic isn't working out too well for you.

Oh, but it is, the conflict from my earlier post will have to be dealt with at some time.

valid reason to deny and blah, blah, blah

Obviously, two gay brothers marrying = no valid reason to deny

A hetro bro and sis = yep ya betcha.

Oh dear

Did your marriage get destroyed when blacks intermarried with whites too?

Blacks cannot change color. A black will always be black and nothing can change that. Gays have married for centuries.

See the difference?

Yes I see that you are a racist and a bigot. Next question.