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

[Skylar]

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.

And by 'stalemate', you mean the situation where the rights of women are protected against unconstitutional State laws?

I'm perfectly happy with that.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

 

[Redfish]

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.

And by 'stalemate', you mean the situation where the rights of women are protected against unconstitutional State laws?

I'm perfectly happy with that.

where are the rights of unborn human beings protected?

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

And by 'stalemate', you mean the situation where the rights of women are protected against unconstitutional State laws?

I'm perfectly happy with that.

So killing is a right?

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

ok, lets go slow------------------in Loving the SC correctly interpreted the 14th amendment that had been misinterpreted by many in the case of mixed race marriage. The 14th amendment was PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE, THE MAJORITY ESTABLISHED THE RIGHTS THAT YOU KEEP CLAIMING WERE ESTABLISHED BY SOME VAGUE MINORITY.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE MAJORITY DOES NOT DECIDE RIGHTS---------ONLY THE MAJORITY CAN ESTABLISH RIGHTS-----------AND YES, A MAJORITY CAN ALSO TAKE AWAY RIGHTS BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

[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

how about the religion of man made global warming?

You mean that religion that 97% of scientists support as accurate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS and federal law and state law, for that matter, can trump majorities. Simple fact, not hard to understand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Majorities can mean nothing (a referendum, an initiative, a passed bill, etc) if a court overturns them.

 

[JoeNormal]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

 

[RKMBrown]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

Some people conflate their authoritarian religious views as right leaning views, when in fact they are just authoritarian. For example, the religious nuts that want to force the world to stop all gay marriages.. yeah those guys, think they are right leaning. But really they are just jerks that happen to have congregated on the right. One day the conservatives will wake up to this and return the republican party to a conservative party that fights for liberty for all.

Another group of nuts on the right thought the court should rule that a fine if you don't buy health insurance is not a tax and thus is unconstitutional. Yeah even the right has people that are that dumb.

 

[thanatos144]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

Some people conflate their authoritarian religious views as right leaning views, when in fact they are just authoritarian. For example, the religious nuts that want to force the world to stop all gay marriages.. yeah those guys, think they are right leaning. But really they are just jerks that happen to have congregated on the right. One day the conservatives will wake up to this and return the republican party to a conservative party that fights for liberty for all.

Another group of nuts on the right thought the court should rule that a fine if you don't buy health insurance is not a tax and thus is unconstitutional. Yeah even the right has people that are that dumb.

God forbid the citizens of a state live how they want without interference from selfish dipshits like you

 

[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.

And by 'stalemate', you mean the situation where the rights of women are protected against unconstitutional State laws?

I'm perfectly happy with that.

Nope, you have a non-clauswitizan victory. So we waste capital on this crap and sooner or later the pendulum always swings the other way.

Live the court decision, die by the court decision.

 

[Judicial review]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

Some people conflate their authoritarian religious views as right leaning views, when in fact they are just authoritarian. For example, the religious nuts that want to force the world to stop all gay marriages.. yeah those guys, think they are right leaning. But really they are just jerks that happen to have congregated on the right. One day the conservatives will wake up to this and return the republican party to a conservative party that fights for liberty for all.

Another group of nuts on the right thought the court should rule that a fine if you don't buy health insurance is not a tax and thus is unconstitutional. Yeah even the right has people that are that dumb.

No. You idiot. It means the court is left leaning on social issues and last I checked this was a gay thread. See the connection, moron.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And by 'stalemate', you mean the situation where the rights of women are protected against unconstitutional State laws?

I'm perfectly happy with that.

Nope, you have a non-clauswitizan victory. So we waste capital on this crap and sooner or later the pendulum always swings the other way.

Live the court decision, die by the court decision.

Women have rights and freedoms that the federal government protects from state interference. You can call it whatever you'd like. You still can't tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

 

[RKMBrown]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

Some people conflate their authoritarian religious views as right leaning views, when in fact they are just authoritarian. For example, the religious nuts that want to force the world to stop all gay marriages.. yeah those guys, think they are right leaning. But really they are just jerks that happen to have congregated on the right. One day the conservatives will wake up to this and return the republican party to a conservative party that fights for liberty for all.

Another group of nuts on the right thought the court should rule that a fine if you don't buy health insurance is not a tax and thus is unconstitutional. Yeah even the right has people that are that dumb.

God forbid the citizens of a state live how they want without interference from selfish dipshits like you

yeah cause if I don't give YOU my income I'm a selfish dipshit. How about you go cry to someone who gives a shit you POS mama's boy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

Some people conflate their authoritarian religious views as right leaning views, when in fact they are just authoritarian. For example, the religious nuts that want to force the world to stop all gay marriages.. yeah those guys, think they are right leaning. But really they are just jerks that happen to have congregated on the right. One day the conservatives will wake up to this and return the republican party to a conservative party that fights for liberty for all.

Another group of nuts on the right thought the court should rule that a fine if you don't buy health insurance is not a tax and thus is unconstitutional. Yeah even the right has people that are that dumb.

God forbid the citizens of a state live how they want without interference from selfish dipshits like you

Who is interfering with how you live, yet you want to deny marriage equality.

Hypocrite much?

 

[martybegan]

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.

And by 'stalemate', you mean the situation where the rights of women are protected against unconstitutional State laws?

I'm perfectly happy with that.

Nope, you have a non-clauswitizan victory. So we waste capital on this crap and sooner or later the pendulum always swings the other way.

Live the court decision, die by the court decision.

Women have rights and freedoms that the federal government protects from state interference. You can call it whatever you'd like. You still can't tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

So they can chop their arms off and the government can't do anything about it? And considering prostitution is still illegal your blanket statment holds no water.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The only judge who is an outright fag hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.