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

[Redfish]

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

the laws that the court bases its decisions on were passed by majority vote. Without majority votes there would be no minority rights. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Redfish]

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.

can they also do whatever they want with the bodies of their children (born and unborn)?

 

[Redfish]

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

 

[martybegan]

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 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.

To be fair, it has to be a super-majority of 2/3 and 3/4. What the founders realized is that some things are such a good idea, but are also burdens on certain groups and the government, that they have to be in place, but there is a chance a simply majority may from time to time oppose them, and seek to repeal them. By making something a constitutional right, one seeks to elevate it past short term trends of popularity, and only allow the government to have a say in those idea if an overwhelming majority wants it.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

To be fair, it has to be a super-majority of 2/3 and 3/4. What the founders realized is that some things are such a good idea, but are also burdens on certain groups and the government, that they have to be in place, but there is a chance a simply majority may from time to time oppose them, and seek to repeal them. By making something a constitutional right, one seeks to elevate it past short term trends of popularity, and only allow the government to have a say in those idea if an overwhelming majority wants it.

ok, valid clarification. You helped make my point. Rights were created by majority vote, not minority desires.

 

[paperview]

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Redfish]

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Uhh, yeah. can you highlight the words "gay marriage" for me? I must have missed them.

since you bolded part ot it, which laws do not equally protect gays?

 

[paperview]

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Uhh, yeah. can you highlight the words "gay marriage" for me? I must have missed them.

since you bolded part ot it, which laws do not equally protect gays?

I don't have to. It's clear as can be: "Any person" means --> Any person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the laws that the court bases its decisions on were passed by majority vote. Without majority votes there would be no minority rights. WTF is wrong with you?

Stop babbling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Done and dismissed. You do not get "just once more."

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

To be fair, it has to be a super-majority of 2/3 and 3/4. What the founders realized is that some things are such a good idea, but are also burdens on certain groups and the government, that they have to be in place, but there is a chance a simply majority may from time to time oppose them, and seek to repeal them. By making something a constitutional right, one seeks to elevate it past short term trends of popularity, and only allow the government to have a say in those idea if an overwhelming majority wants it.

ok, valid clarification. You helped make my point. Rights were created by majority vote, not minority desires.

You are making the point that you don't understand.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

The SCOTUS is one woman wearing comfortable shoes from being left-leaning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish reminds of the shark that swam endlessly in a circle pool at the entrance to the San Francisco pool, for many years swimmingly endlessly, mindlessly, only for interest and entertainment.

 

[Redfish]

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;

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Uhh, yeah. can you highlight the words "gay marriage" for me? I must have missed them.

since you bolded part ot it, which laws do not equally protect gays?

I don't have to. It's clear as can be: "Any person" means --> Any person.

OK, any person. What gay person is not allowed access to marriage laws? A gay man can marry a gay woman in any state. A gay man can marry a straight woman in any state.

two women or two men is not a marriage, it is a perversion of human sexuality. But, having said that, I have no objection to gays being allowed to legally and mutually commit to each other and have the same rights as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage---------it is a gay union of two people with mental abnormalities.

 

[Redfish]

the laws that the court bases its decisions on were passed by majority vote. Without majority votes there would be no minority rights. WTF is wrong with you?

Stop babbling.

says the perpetual babbler.

if not by majority vote, exactly how were minority rights created?

 

[Redfish]

Redfish reminds of the shark that swam endlessly in a circle pool at the entrance to the San Francisco pool, for many years swimmingly endlessly, mindlessly, only for interest and entertainment.

jake, aka, rightwinger at work.

 

[paperview]

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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Uhh, yeah. can you highlight the words "gay marriage" for me? I must have missed them.

since you bolded part ot it, which laws do not equally protect gays?

I don't have to. It's clear as can be: "Any person" means --> Any person.

OK, any person. What gay person is not allowed access to marriage laws? A gay man can marry a gay woman in any state. A gay man can marry a straight woman in any state.

two women or two men is not a marriage, it is a perversion of human sexuality. But, having said that, I have no objection to gays being allowed to legally and mutually commit to each other and have the same rights as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage---------it is a gay union of two people with mental abnormalities.

don't you get tired being told how stupid that example is?

Before Loving v Virginia, stupid people said the same thing about how free blacks were to marry -- they just have to marry someone of their own race.

SCOTUS then didn't buy it. Neither will this one.

It infringes on the fundamental right to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the 14th is the power

majorities cannot take away civil rights except by amendment

courts can overturn majorities

we are a constitutional republic with some democratic procedures

you have made no worthy point

your arguments about equal access is flawed, which has been explained to you

you sound like a stupid person

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish reminds of the shark that swam endlessly in a circle pool at the entrance to the San Francisco pool, for many years swimmingly endlessly, mindlessly, only for interest and entertainment.

jake, aka, rightwinger at work.

Does not matter, bub: you are wrong

 

[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

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Here you go:

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By any definition, gays are persons