Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[rightwinger]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

It is conservatives who are petty in passing cruel and vindictive legislation targeting gays

What laws are those?

Let's see
Laws banning gays in the military
Sodomy laws
Laws against gays adopting
Laws defining marriage that excludes gay marriage

 

[thanatos144]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

It is conservatives who are petty in passing cruel and vindictive legislation targeting gays

What laws are those?

Let's see
Laws banning gays in the military
Sodomy laws
Laws against gays adopting
Laws defining marriage that excludes gay marriage

None of those are laws

 

[JakeStarkey]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Agit8r is spot on. The court leans to the right. On specific social issues like gay rights, Kennedy breaks with the conservatives, having written the Lawernce, Romer and Windsor decisions. But he's with the right wing block like 80% of the time.

Chances are that Kennedy will vote with the left leaning block on gay marriage. And chances are extraordinarily good that Kennedy himself with author the ruling.

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

Your view of SCOTUS and philosophy is a small minority position, which most people dismiss. It's also hypocritical. If SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade, you would be cheering.

 

[martybegan]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Agit8r is spot on. The court leans to the right. On specific social issues like gay rights, Kennedy breaks with the conservatives, having written the Lawernce, Romer and Windsor decisions. But he's with the right wing block like 80% of the time.

Chances are that Kennedy will vote with the left leaning block on gay marriage. And chances are extraordinarily good that Kennedy himself with author the ruling.

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

Your view of SCOTUS and philosophy is a small minority position, which most people dismiss. It's also hypocritical. If SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade, you would be cheering.

Yes, and in most states Abortion would remain legally protected.

We may then get a resolution to the issue, instead of our current state of stalemate imposed by an activist court.

 

[rightwinger]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

It is conservatives who are petty in passing cruel and vindictive legislation targeting gays

What laws are those?

Let's see
Laws banning gays in the military
Sodomy laws
Laws against gays adopting
Laws defining marriage that excludes gay marriage

None of those are laws

Not any more

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

 

[thanatos144]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

Congress shall make no law that infringes on religon

 

[rightwinger]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

Congress shall make no law that infringes on religon

Religion of people not corporations

 

[Redfish]

Why do you idiots keep thinking republican automatically means conservative? Are you so blind?

Being Republican means you are either conservative or ultraconservative

if thats correct, then being democrat means you are either a fool or an idiot, or both.

There are two groups who vote Republican; millionaires and suckers...

You would be the latter...

Really, then the hollywood millionaires are republicans? Soros is a republican? M Moore is a republican? Gore is a republican? Pelosi is a republican? Bloomberg is a republican?

you are so full of shit. your stale talking points make you look like a complete fool.

 

[Redfish]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

Congress shall make no law that infringes on religon

Religion of people not corporations

how about the religion of man made global warming?

 

[Redfish]

your knowledge of our government is very limited. Did you fail 9th grade civics class?

the SC is not there to protect anyone from anyone else. The SC exists to decide cases that have been appealed from the lower courts. The SC is not the morals police?

You seem to have missed out on 200 years of Supreme Court decisions

In cases related to morals and individual rights.........yes they are the morals police

wrong again, you libtardian indoctrination has blocked rational thought. Morals and ethics are established by the society in general, a majority of society decided that minorities should have equal treatment. The SC only exists to make sure that the rights established by the majority are unheld.

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

 

[Redfish]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

Congress shall make no law that infringes on religon

Religion of people not corporations

Hmmm, lets see now. the owners, shareholders and employees of hobby lobby are what, if not people?

 

[paperview]

You seem to have missed out on 200 years of Supreme Court decisions

In cases related to morals and individual rights.........yes they are the morals police

wrong again, you libtardian indoctrination has blocked rational thought. Morals and ethics are established by the society in general, a majority of society decided that minorities should have equal treatment. The SC only exists to make sure that the rights established by the majority are unheld.

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

 

[Redfish]

wrong again, you libtardian indoctrination has blocked rational thought. Morals and ethics are established by the society in general, a majority of society decided that minorities should have equal treatment. The SC only exists to make sure that the rights established by the majority are unheld.

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

 

[thanatos144]

wrong again, you libtardian indoctrination has blocked rational thought. Morals and ethics are established by the society in general, a majority of society decided that minorities should have equal treatment. The SC only exists to make sure that the rights established by the majority are unheld.

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

Where in the constitution does it supprt slavery?

 

[RKMBrown]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Gay marriage is not a left/right issue it's an authoritarian religious whacko vs gays issue.

And thats why you are retarded

Don't you have a beer cooler to stock?

Hurt your retarded bigotry is exposed?

How is bigotry against authoritarian religious whack jobs, retarded?

 

[Skylar]

For the sake of posterity, I think Roberts will also side with the left

So do I. Roberts has three abiding core values: conservatism, legacy and the integrity of the courts.

On the first count, Roberts would side with the conservatives. The latter two would compel him to side with the left and Kennedy.

I think if Roberts vote could change the outcome, he'd side with the conservatives. But it seems increasingly unlikely that his vote will change anything. Kennedy seems poised to side with the left on this issue and preserve gay marriage. So Roberts is left with his own personal legacy and the intergrity of the courts.

No one save Scalia wants to be this generations Leon Bazile;

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile ruling against Mildred and Richard Loving

With 50 years of separation, Leon sounds ignorant as fuck. And that ruling against the Lovings defines his legacy. I think Roberts recognizes the issue of gay marriage will be similarly important in the long term. With opposition to gay marriage look back upon and scorned as useless ignorance. I don't think he wants to be on the wrong side of this issue.

As for the integrity of the court, most of your major civil rights legislation was historically done as close to unanimous as possible. Both Brown v. The Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia ruling were unanimous. A deeply divided court makes the USSC look political. A more unanimous verdict, impartial and more constitutional. I see this ruling as being in the same ball park in terms of long term significance. I suspect this may push Roberts toward concurring sheerly for the sake of consensus within the courts.

I think its likely that we'll get a 6 to 3 ruling out of the court in favor of gay marriage. I'd say even 7-2 was possible....though quite unlikely. I don't see Scalia or Thomas siding with gay marriage regardless.

And as an aside, I disagree with Roberts on many issues. But I think he's a fine Chief Justice. Thoroughly qualified, thoughtful, and principled. I just disagree on where he's placed his principles.

 

[Syriusly]

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

Not in America. Not necessarily.

There are many 'rights' that the courts have recognized that the 'majority' opposed. A prime example were the laws against mixed race marriage- the Supreme Court found that violated the 14th Amendment- even though the laws were passed by majority vote, and even though the majority of Americans were against mixed race marriages for another 30 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

Hobby Lobby? Regressives are petty also.

Congress shall make no law that infringes on religon

Sure, it can: prayer in school and polygamy.

Where did you grow up?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment. They were willing to look the other way like they had for 100 years
Dr King changed all that

Hmmmm, I don't remember King as a writer of the constitution. Did he also sign the declaration of independence?

Who exactly do you think ratified the constitution if not a majority of the states?

WTF does that have to do with what I posted?

you said "The majority of Americans did not decide that minorities should have equal treatment."

I merely pointed out why that is a lie.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

Where in the constitution does it supprt slavery?

Before 1870? Look it up, pinhead.