Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

[OKTexas]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

And?

Shall we review the Constitution again?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So which of these causes did Kennedy do? Which crime did Kennedy commit?

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

Breach of public trust, or breach of oath of office could do it. Of course the libs in the senate will never vote to impeach anyone who votes their way.

 

[Skylar]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

And?

Shall we review the Constitution again?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So which of these causes did Kennedy do? Which crime did Kennedy commit?

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

Breach of public trust, or breach of oath of office could do it. Of course the libs in the senate will never vote to impeach anyone who votes their way.

Its not going to happen. But if you find it emotionally satisfying to imagine it, feel free. Everyone deals with loss differently.

 

[OKTexas]

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

And I repeat, you have yet to even read the Obergefell decision or to determine the legal logic they used in overturning state marriage laws. Until you are aware of that reasoning its quite impossible for you to claim it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you. And you refuse to even read the ruling you are railing against.

In the most real sense imaginable, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

According to whom, according to what legal authority – you, 'strict constructionists,' ridiculous rightwing blogs; who exactly has been 'authorized' to decide what the Constitution means other than the Supreme Court, and by what 'authority.'

Did you bother to read post #28.

I'll post the critical part for you.

We have now been reduced to granting rights base on actions and preferences instead of genetics, no way anything could go wrong there.

 

[OKTexas]

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws. Like I said they invented a new right based purely on actions and preferences, not genetics, which had been the basis for previous legal decisions.

 

[OKTexas]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

And?

Shall we review the Constitution again?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So which of these causes did Kennedy do? Which crime did Kennedy commit?

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

Breach of public trust, or breach of oath of office could do it. Of course the libs in the senate will never vote to impeach anyone who votes their way.

Its not going to happen. But if you find it emotionally satisfying to imagine it, feel free. Everyone deals with loss differently.

Hey dummy, I said it wouldn't happen.

 

[Skylar]

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

 

[Skylar]

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

And?

Shall we review the Constitution again?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So which of these causes did Kennedy do? Which crime did Kennedy commit?

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

Breach of public trust, or breach of oath of office could do it. Of course the libs in the senate will never vote to impeach anyone who votes their way.

Its not going to happen. But if you find it emotionally satisfying to imagine it, feel free. Everyone deals with loss differently.

Hey dummy, I said it wouldn't happen.

Given that even the House, which the GOP controls, won't vote for any such impeachment, of course it won't happen.

The GOP won't let it.

 

[OKTexas]

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case. Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

 

[OKTexas]

And?

Shall we review the Constitution again?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So which of these causes did Kennedy do? Which crime did Kennedy commit?

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

Breach of public trust, or breach of oath of office could do it. Of course the libs in the senate will never vote to impeach anyone who votes their way.

Its not going to happen. But if you find it emotionally satisfying to imagine it, feel free. Everyone deals with loss differently.

Hey dummy, I said it wouldn't happen.

Given that even the House, which the GOP controls, won't vote for any such impeachment, of course it won't happen.

The GOP won't let it.

For the same reason they haven't voted to impeach your dear leader, it would be an exercise in futility.

 

[Skylar]

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

 

[Skylar]

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

Breach of public trust, or breach of oath of office could do it. Of course the libs in the senate will never vote to impeach anyone who votes their way.

Its not going to happen. But if you find it emotionally satisfying to imagine it, feel free. Everyone deals with loss differently.

Hey dummy, I said it wouldn't happen.

Given that even the House, which the GOP controls, won't vote for any such impeachment, of course it won't happen.

The GOP won't let it.

For the same reason they haven't voted to impeach your dear leader, it would be an exercise in futility.

They voted to repeal Obamcare more than 50 times. That was an exercise in futility. Clearly 'acts of futility' aren't a deterrent for your GOP. Yet they won't vote to impeach anyone.

Try again.

 

[OKTexas]

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

 

[Skylar]

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision?

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? So far, you do. Citing yourself.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? Specifically?

What do you claim 'natural basis' means. It seems pretty central to your claims regarding 'new rights'.

And when did the court say that 'gay is a separate gender'. I've read the entire Obergefell ruling and I never saw that claim. Is that you citing yourself again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

And I repeat, you have yet to even read the Obergefell decision or to determine the legal logic they used in overturning state marriage laws. Until you are aware of that reasoning its quite impossible for you to claim it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you. And you refuse to even read the ruling you are railing against.

In the most real sense imaginable, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

According to whom, according to what legal authority – you, 'strict constructionists,' ridiculous rightwing blogs; who exactly has been 'authorized' to decide what the Constitution means other than the Supreme Court, and by what 'authority.'

Did you bother to read post #28.

I'll post the critical part for you.

We have now been reduced to granting rights base on actions and preferences instead of genetics, no way anything could go wrong there.

Did you bother to read the ruling - it's been linked several times; here it is again:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[SwimExpert]

You're so deranged it's almost as funny as it is sad. So, the tenth amendment means the states can do anything whatsoever they want. But the ninth amendment is just a fashionable piece of jewelry. Your brain is so rotted you can't even fathom how absurd you are being.

9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment

Might I point out to you that the 9th amendment was not used in the Loving case.

And I might also point out that the 9th amendment was not used in the latest ruling.

Might I also point out that in every other case before the SCOTUS that even closely involved marriage it was marriage between a man and a woman.

Further, if the tide was indeed turning and states are accepting gay marriage, or were before being forced, then there was little to no need for the court to do anything.

And, since you said it. The 9th amendment has seldom if ever has been used so yes it is somewhat like a nice piece of jewelry.

What the court did was redefine marriage and write law, that shouldn't happen.

In other words.....

 

[Freewill]

You're so deranged it's almost as funny as it is sad. So, the tenth amendment means the states can do anything whatsoever they want. But the ninth amendment is just a fashionable piece of jewelry. Your brain is so rotted you can't even fathom how absurd you are being.

9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment

Might I point out to you that the 9th amendment was not used in the Loving case.

And I might also point out that the 9th amendment was not used in the latest ruling.

Might I also point out that in every other case before the SCOTUS that even closely involved marriage it was marriage between a man and a woman.

Further, if the tide was indeed turning and states are accepting gay marriage, or were before being forced, then there was little to no need for the court to do anything.

And, since you said it. The 9th amendment has seldom if ever has been used so yes it is somewhat like a nice piece of jewelry.

What the court did was redefine marriage and write law, that shouldn't happen.

In other words.....

Well I guess you lost another debate, loser.

 

[hangover]

Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

Good luck with that, BWAH HA HA HA HA!

 

[OKTexas]

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision?

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? So far, you do. Citing yourself.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? Specifically?

What do you claim 'natural basis' means. It seems pretty central to your claims regarding 'new rights'.

And when did the court say that 'gay is a separate gender'. I've read the entire Obergefell ruling and I never saw that claim. Is that you citing yourself again?

What was the basis for the decision? Why haven't you addressed my points, oh I know, you can't refute them.

 

[OKTexas]

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.