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

[martybegan]

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

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.

Evidently however, ignoring rights EXPLICIT in the constitution, such as 2nd amendment rights, or freedom of religion is OK as long as it forwards progressive goals, and, of course, fucks over the "right" people.

 

[martybegan]

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

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.

by your logic we can't deny incestuous marriages either.

 

[paperview]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.
...

That's why we have The Civil Rights Amendment of 1964, amirite?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment" is a false premise, thus the argument that follows is fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.
...

That's why we have The Civil Rights Amendment of 1964, amirite?

AMEN!

 

[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

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.

by your logic we can't deny incestuous marriages either.

That is the point of why they are violating the 14th amendment. The state is not treating them equal

The state can point to where incestuous marriage harms society, they have failed to do the same with gay marriage....especially with ten years of evidence that there has been no harm

 

[martybegan]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.
...

That's why we have The Civil Rights Amendment of 1964, amirite?

The law was based on the Reconstruction amendments, and only APPLIED the concept of the amendments. The overall concept was in place since the 1860's.

Also remember that said amendments were ignored for almost 80 years due to a court decision.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.

by your logic we can't deny incestuous marriages either.

That is the point of why they are violating the 14th amendment. The state is not treating them equal

The state can point to where incestuous marriage harms society, they have failed to do the same with gay marriage....especially with ten years of evidence that there has been no harm

Where does this "harm standard" come from? It seems you are using an absolutionist line of logic when it suits you (calling gay marriage equal to hetero marriage) and then applying limits when the natural progression goes to incestuous marriage. So you castigate those who put the line where you don't want it, and then place the line where you think it should go.

What about homosexual incestuous marriage? when you remove the chance of damaged offspring, where is the societal harm?

 

[paperview]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.
...

That's why we have The Civil Rights Amendment of 1964, amirite?

The law was based on the Reconstruction amendments, and only APPLIED the concept of the amendments. The overall concept was in place since the 1860's.

Also remember that said amendments were ignored for almost 80 years due to a court decision.

It's OK, you can say it: You were wrong when you said: "Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment,"

 

[martybegan]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.
...

That's why we have The Civil Rights Amendment of 1964, amirite?

AMEN!

See my retort to that, and nice try farkey.

 

[martybegan]

"Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment, they are another word for constitutional rights. A court cannot create a civil right, except in the addled minds of progressive assholes.
...

That's why we have The Civil Rights Amendment of 1964, amirite?

The law was based on the Reconstruction amendments, and only APPLIED the concept of the amendments. The overall concept was in place since the 1860's.

Also remember that said amendments were ignored for almost 80 years due to a court decision.

It's OK, you can say it: You were wrong when you said: "Civil" rights can only be created BY amendment,"

Nope, I was right, and I showed it to you.

What you are calling civil rights are actually what you want to be considered natural rights, which of course can only be protected from government interference by the constitution, not created by the constitution.

You think gay marriage is a natural right, and you seek to make it a civil/constitutional right, however you are not using the proper mechanism, i.e. the amendment process. You instead appeal to 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

 

[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.

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

what laws do not apply to gays? In what state are gays deprived or life, liberty, or property? You libs are making a failed attempt to create something that does not exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your retorts meaningless, Marty and Redfish, as are your arguments.

You argue to argue because you have nothing else with which to work.

Those with greater and far more understanding about the Constitution, American law, the American narrative than have explained all this to you, and with immoral stubbornness bordering on pathology, you continue to argue.

Now we are merely toying with you.

 

[Redfish]

Your retorts meaningless, Marty and Redfish, as are your arguments.

You argue to argue because you have nothing else with which to work.

Those with greater and far more understanding about the Constitution, American law, the American narrative than have explained all this to you, and with immoral stubbornness bordering on pathology, you continue to argue.

Now we are merely toying with you.

no, snake, you are the ones being toyed with. Tell us, before the constitution what rights existed for the people living in north america?

 

[paperview]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

 

[paperview]

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

"It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

 

[rightwinger]

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

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.

by your logic we can't deny incestuous marriages either.

That is the point of why they are violating the 14th amendment. The state is not treating them equal

The state can point to where incestuous marriage harms society, they have failed to do the same with gay marriage....especially with ten years of evidence that there has been no harm

Where does this "harm standard" come from? It seems you are using an absolutionist line of logic when it suits you (calling gay marriage equal to hetero marriage) and then applying limits when the natural progression goes to incestuous marriage. So you castigate those who put the line where you don't want it, and then place the line where you think it should go.

What about homosexual incestuous marriage? when you remove the chance of damaged offspring, where is the societal harm?

Why don't you just come out with it?

What about the wedding cakes?

 

[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

what laws do not apply to gays? In what state are gays deprived or life, liberty, or property? You libs are making a failed attempt to create something that does not exist.

Read your laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman

 

[Redfish]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

Really? what statute makes it a "fundamental" right? Was marriage a fundamental right before the constitution? Where is gay marriage ever mentioned in any of our statutes or legal documents

 

[martybegan]

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

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.

by your logic we can't deny incestuous marriages either.

That is the point of why they are violating the 14th amendment. The state is not treating them equal

The state can point to where incestuous marriage harms society, they have failed to do the same with gay marriage....especially with ten years of evidence that there has been no harm

Where does this "harm standard" come from? It seems you are using an absolutionist line of logic when it suits you (calling gay marriage equal to hetero marriage) and then applying limits when the natural progression goes to incestuous marriage. So you castigate those who put the line where you don't want it, and then place the line where you think it should go.

What about homosexual incestuous marriage? when you remove the chance of damaged offspring, where is the societal harm?

Why don't you just come out with it?

What about the wedding cakes?

That's the next debate. and I notice you didn't answer my question.