Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[ThisIsMe]

What a buch of idiotic bullshit! You would have to be really, really stupid to think that they would have to prove anything, and I don't think that you are stuoi. You are many things but not stupid. That only leaves delusional or a manipulative liar. Thomas andAlity are itching for a chance to overturn it,they said as much. And I'm sure that there are 3 others who would go along. And you cling to this idea that Obergefell is not court made law while other rulings are is beyond pathetic.

If they were itching to do so, then why don't they? They have a majority on the court.

I'd have to hear thomas give some clarification to his remarks, to determine if he is just simply wanting to try and ban gay marriage, or if his remarks are more of an issue with the how those rulings were decided under the constitution. He made reference to other "substantive decisions", aside from obergefell. Thus doesn't mean he is trying to end gay marriage, maybe he just questions the decision on the reasoning behind it. I don't know.

Either way, it doesn't change due process, equal protection, and i really doubt they will even take up the case.

 

[ThisIsMe]

On the other hand, maybe you are stupid:

Can Supreme Court decisions be appealed?​

Why can you not appeal a Supreme Court decision? One cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision because the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the United States. Can the Supreme Court overrule a state supreme court? Federal courts may overrule a state supreme court decision only when there is a federal question which springs up a federal jurisdiction

Ahh, my bad, I thought there was a process to appeal a scotus decision. Still, very likely it's a moot point, as I don't see them doing it. At the worst, it turns the decision over to the states, and the appeals will just land there.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That is NOT from the link that I posted you lying shit! I did not post this:'



This is someones dishonest interpretation of it. You fail to include the last paragraph of the section:

8.18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It is from the link you posted. Read the whole article. It's like 2 to 4 paragraphs in.

As to your quote, yes, congress can make laws, necessary and proper to the execution of powers vested to it by the cotus. In other words, it's not saying that congress can do whatever it wants, it's saying that congress can pass laws to facilitate the enumerated powers that the cotus gives to its jurisdiction.

The Necessary and Proper Clause1 concludes Article I's list of Congress's enumerated powers with a general statement that Congress's powers include not only those expressly listed, but also the authority to use all means “necessary and proper” for executing those express powers. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are “conducive” to the “beneficial exercise” of an enumerated power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ThisIsMe]

If what your saying is correct, and if it were upheld by the courts, there would be no Federal administrative agecies from the Deprtment of Health and Human Serices to the Department of Education and everything in between., all created by legislation. All Federal programs under the various Departments from Social Security and Medicare to food and drug safety would have been ruled unconstitutional.In your view, the only legitimat role of the Federal Government aside from defense is to dole out money to the states to do as they please with

Precisely. You do realize, each state already has their own department of education,.right? They each have their own department of health.

And no, I don't think the federal government t should be doling out money, because if we did things the way the cotus says, the federal gov wouldn't have any money to dole out, nor would it need to. It should have just enough money to run its legitimate functions, and a little bit extra for modest salaries, as prescribed by the cotus.

As far as social security, Medicare, food and safety, all those things would have worked themselves out eventually through state agencies, and locally. If the federal government can do it, each state could do it as well.

I'm not saying that social security and Medicare are bad things, but they should not be run by the Federal Government. These should be state based agencies. As we've seen, the best way to waste or lose money is to give it to the federal government.

On top of that, social security is starting to decline. People now are getting less out of it than they put in, and I think I heard the figure they by..2030? People can expect to draw about 70% of what they put in.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Except of course when YOU think that it should be broadly interpreted and adaptable to changing and unforeen issues. You need to pick a side and stick to it

I am picking a side. I don't think the cotus should benefit me any more than it does anyone else. I'm saying let's stick to the original idea of the cotus, and let the states and the people have the power.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, it depends on who is in control and what their agenda is. The positive ontributions of the progresive movement through federal programs and legislation is well documented. The abuse of power by the states when they have too much autonomy is also well documeted,

Ok, that's why we have courts.

If you want to give the federal government ultimate control, then change the cotus. You simply can't say "well, we don't like how it's going, so we'll just ignore the delegated powers and let fed gov run free".

We have procedures in place to cure the failings of our governments, but ignoring the cotus is not one of them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, that's why we have courts.

If you want to give the federal government ultimate control, then change the cotus. You simply can't say "well, we don't like how it's going, so we'll just ignore the delegated powers and let fed gov run free".

We have procedures in place to cure the failings of our governments, but ignoring the cotus is not one of them.

You know, I had said that I was done with you, and summed up my reasons. However I will respond to the most agrtegiously stupid shit that you say, when I have nothing better to do which is almost never.

There is NO NEED to change the CONSTITUTION and NO one is saying that "we don't like how it's going so,..." Clearly you do not understand how things work. There is a clear criteria for when and how a state law that is alledged to be discrininatory or overly retrictive -and placing on undue burden on a particular group is addressed by the court

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In U.S. constitutional law, when a court finds that a law infringes a fundamental constitutional right, it may apply the strict scrutiny standard to nevertheless hold the law or policy constitutionally valid if the government can demonstrate in court that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the compelling purpose, and uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose. Failure to show these conditions may result in a judge striking down a law as unconstitutional.

The standard is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

In case you need help in understanding this, in it really very simple. The state must prove that the need for the restricive law out weighs the burden placed on those effected by it. SCOTUS must explain why the law is unconstitutional, or why it is not.

We on the left are not the ones saying that the Federal Government should "run free" If anyone is saying that , it's the MAGA Republicans and especially Trump who has little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law, and thinks that it's OK to use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate his enemies. And it his hand picked SCOTUS who thinks that they can disregard the constitution and settled law inorder to advance their clearly political agenda

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am picking a side. I don't think the cotus should benefit me any more than it does anyone else. I'm saying let's stick to the original idea of the cotus, and let the states and the people have the power.

Yes, the power of the strong to savage the waek without having to answere to the constitution. Now I am beginning to see you as a libertarian, which, to me is an anarchist is sheeps cothing

 

[ThisIsMe]

You know, I had said that I was done with you, and summed up my reasons. However I will respond to the most agrtegiously stupid shit that you say, when I have nothing better to do which is almost never.

There is NO NEED to change the CONSTITUTION and NO one is saying that "we don't like how it's going so,..." Clearly you do not understand how things work. There is a clear criteria for when and how a state law that is alledged to be discrininatory or overly retrictive -and placing on undue burden on a particular group is addressed by the court

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In case you need help in understanding this, in it really very simple. The state must prove that the need for the restricive law out weighs the burden placed on those effected by it. SCOTUS must explain why the law is unconstitutional, or why it is not.

We on the left are not the ones saying that the Federal Government should "run free" If anyone is saying that , it's the MAGA Republicans and especially Trump who has little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law, and thinks that it's OK to use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate his enemies. And it his hand picked SCOTUS who thinks that they can disregard the constitution and settled law inorder to advance their clearly political agenda

There is NO NEED to change the CONSTITUTION

I agree, but it can be changed if the people want it to be.

and NO one is saying that "we don't like how it's going so

That's exactly what you are saying when you talk about cotus being "fluid" and having a "broad interpretation". You are basically thumbing your nose at the document as written and trying to make it into something its not supposed to be.

There is a clear criteria for when and how a state law that is alledged to be discrininatory or overly retrictive -and placing on undue burden on a particular group is addressed by the court

Exactly. And the "strict scrutiny" you posted even talks about laws that violate a person's constitutional rights, and how the courts can deal with that. I've been saying this all along.....

We on the left are not the ones saying that the Federal Government should "run free

Yes, you are. When you start wanting to make the cotus "fluid", and allowing the fed gov to exceed its delegated powers, you are essentially wanting a central autocratic government that has no restrictions....i.e. "running free"

it's the MAGA Republicans and especially Trump who has little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law,

Incorrect. Republicans just want people to adhere to the cotus, and they want secure elections and secure borders.

and thinks that it's OK to use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate his enemies

I'm surprised you said this, when it was you guys who used the IRS as a weapon against conservatives. Also, when did the right use the justice department to intimidate people?

And it his hand picked SCOTUS who thinks that they can disregard the constitution and settled law inorder to advance their clearly political agenda

Roe was not settled law, the courts can't make law. This is the crux of the argument we've been having for over a month now. The scotus said people have a right to privacy, and the leftists said "abortion is law!!!", completely bastardizing the scotus decision. When they overturned roe, they corrected a long time mistake, by saying "hey, abortion is a states rights issue".

inorder to advance their clearly political agenda

...and the left is screaming for Biden to pack the scotus.....for.....political agenda....

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, the power of the strong to savage the waek without having to answere to the constitution. Now I am beginning to see you as a libertarian, which, to me is an anarchist is sheeps cothing

Ok, you've said this several times. What states are violating someone's cotus rights?

At the end of it all, we have a charter in place that describes what our country is supposed to be. You want to ignore that, and just let the government do whatever. I think that is a bad idea because that "whatever" is going to be vastly different depending on who controls it. If we stick to the original idea, then it doesn't matter who controls it, because the rules are set, and each side has to abide by them.

You know, that makes me think, if we adhered to the cotus, this whole battle between Republicans and dems would be irrelevant, the only time it would matter would be at the state level.

Imagine that, not having to battle every single day for "the soul of the nation". If we just did what cotus said, at least at the federal level, there would be no battle!

 

[flan327]

as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context. What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state. That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.

If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.

You need help

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm surprised you said this, when it was you guys who used the IRS as a weapon against conservatives. Also, when did the right use the justice department to intimidate people?

Bullshit!

MSN

www.msn.com

And apparently he did. For some reason, and against all odd..BOTH were subjected to a deep dive audit

MSN

www.msn.com

Neal and Pascrell Seek Expanded Probe of Unprecedented Trump Use of IRS

WASHINGTON, DC—Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) today called on the U.S. Treasury Department to expand its probe of former President Donald Trump’s use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target his...

waysandmeans.house.gov

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If they were itching to do so, then why don't they? They have a majority on the court.

Because they can't "just do it" silly. They need to have a case brought before them by someone who has standing

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'd have to hear thomas give some clarification to his remarks, to determine if he is just simply wanting to try and ban gay marriage, or if his remarks are more of an issue with the how those rulings were decided under the constitution. He made reference to other "substantive decisions", aside from obergefell. Thus doesn't mean he is trying to end gay marriage, maybe he just questions the decision on the reasoning behind it. I don't know.

Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

The two justices said the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges hurt religious liberty and "created a problem that only it can fix."

www.npr.org

They are fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage

The two justices agreed with the decision not to hear the case but used the occasion to take a legal baseball bat to the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the 14th Amendment guarantee to equal protection of the law.

Writing for himself and Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Either way, it doesn't change due process, equal protection, and i really doubt they will even take up the case.

It does not matter to these people.

 

[flan327]

... separate schools for white children and black children ...

Not HERE

 

[flan327]

We believe in freedom....but....only a little freedom

All animals are EQUAL
But some are MORE equal than others

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

The two justices said the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges hurt religious liberty and "created a problem that only it can fix."

www.npr.org

They are fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage

PS Thomas' reasoning - that allowing gay marriage will result in people being branded as bigots is jyst plain stupid-or just a dishonest way of attempting to justify the denial of marriage. Those who oppose marriage equality will be branded as bigots regadless of the legal status of marriage

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Those who oppose marriage equality will be branded as bigots regadless of the legal status of marriage

Only by depraved sexual perverts and their allies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, you've said this several times. What states are violating someone's cotus rights?

Give me a fucking break!! There are a number of states that do not protect gays from work place discrimination, housing , discrimination, discrimination in financial transactions, and public accomodations

In addition, some states still restrict of prohibit addoption by gay people. And don't forget, marriage is allowed only because of Obergefell in some states

Home

We are a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV.

www.lambdalegal.org