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

[Redfish]

OMG, I cannot continue to deal with your stupidity. The majority decided on the rights of minorities. And Yes, a majority could limit the rights of a minority, For example, a majority could decide to limit the number of muslim immigrants allowed to enter this country. Minority rights do not include the right to attack and kill the majority.

Pretty sure that wouldn't stand Constitutionally.

IF THE CONSTITUTION WAS CHANGED TO READ THAT WAY IT WOULD BE 100% CONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS WHAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION, NOT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE.

She is dealing in the real world of our Constitution while you are engaging in Constitutional fantasy

Even you would not want to live in the world you propose

that is the world we live you flaming asshole. We vote on rights, we vote on what is right and what is wrong.

there is no magical set or human rights, each society sets its own based on what the majority believe.

and for the last time------------MINORITY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY.

The majority establishes what rights the minority are allowed to have?

What country do you live in?

yes, thats way it works, a majority ratified the constitution and the bill of rights and every amendment to the constitution. A majority passed every law and statute at the federal, state, and local level. A majority of states could amend the constitution and change those rights if it so chose. A majority of states could ratify a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage.

thats the way a representative democracy works. We or our representatives vote and the majority wins.

 

[Redfish]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

 

[Ubiquitor]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

 

[Skylar]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

Exactly. And an amendment isn't passed by a 'majority vote'. But a really most sincerely super majority.

 

[Skylar]

A majority of states could ratify a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage.

No they couldn't. They'd need far, far more than a majority for a constitutional amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, if you are arguing what the hetero-fascists have against marriage equality, your side will lose, period.

"My" side is the side of using the constitution properly. If you want "my" side to lose, then you are an anti-american fuckwad.

Under your skin, hmm. Nope, your terms and definitions are not based in the American narrative and American law, including the Constitution.

Marty, you can have your own opinion, but not your own terms, definitions, and facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

Yes. NYC is not the federal government. Cities and states have been restricting guns owners since the start of this nation.

So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?

If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?

First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.

Second, the 14th does not incorporation all of the federal restrictions to the states. If it incorporated the 2nd amendment it would have also said something like, nor shall the states infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Third, you "ask how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun." The same way any city sets up laws. It passes a law stating that you can't carry a handgun within the city limits then it enforces that law.

The wording of the 2nd amendment states the people's rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the 14th amendment precludes the States from "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." If that is the case, how can a State "infringe" on my right to carry a firearm. I'm not talking about making me get a CCW permit as infringing, NYC states I have to have a reason THEY approve of.

Easy. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the federal government stating that the federal government can't infringe, not a right granted by the federal government that can't be infringed. As much as I dislike it, the states, cities and such have always infringed on this right.

 

[RKMBrown]

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

Fucking pussy.

What is it with these right wing conservatives?

They have the vocabulary of 13 year old boys on the school ground.

Is it just a limited vocabulary- or is it just a limited imagination- or is it because of stunted maturity?

It's just anger. I'm a hetero libertarian right wing christian conservative. He's mad cause his bigotry is being exposed. Where before it was the norm.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?

How can I be a bigot if I have been on record as saying that I have no issue if Gay marriage goes on the book via State legislative action, and that I would probably vote for it?

YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.

And I wouldn't have an issue working at a Gay wedding either. What I don't feel is the need to force my morality on others, more importantly I detest those who use the government to do it instead of doing it themselves.

I'm sorry, just exactly how do you want gays to force their states to hand them marriage licenses? Guns?

 

[Skylar]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

So when the majority of representatives in Chicago outlawed certain handguns.......you were down with that, siding against McDonald in Chicago v. McDonald?

Or did you side with the 'minority dictate' that found that such laws violated constitutional guarantees?

 

[Syriusly]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

Americans have turned to the courts for relief from what they believe are unconstitutional laws all the time- Americans on both the right and the left.

There is nothing more constitutional than asking the courts for protection from unconstitutional laws.

The Right regularly goes to the courts to overturn what it considers illegal laws- look at gun laws- look at Citizen's United.
Look at the other marriage laws the court have overturned- bans on mixed race marriages, bans on marriage by parents who owe child support.

You only object because these particular laws are being overturned courts.

Want to prove me wrong?- show me the threads where you make the same complaints about lawsuits against gun laws.

 

[RKMBrown]

The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.

Let me be more clear.

The due process clause of the 14th currently says:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

What the 14th should have said:
"nor shall any state hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any state subject any person to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any state compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law as set forth by federal guidelines for the 5th amendment; nor any state take private property for public use, without just compensation."

How you get from that statement to forcing gay marriage on states is beyond me.

The feds can't force gay marriage on you, but they can stop you from restricting gay marriage. Do you understand the difference between raping someone and stopping someone from raping someone?

Really? A rape comparison?

Talk about losing the argument....

So you don't understand the difference between raping someone and stopping someone from raping someone?

I reject the comparison out of hand as not material to the conversation.

Do you understand the difference between harming someone and stopping someone from being harmed.

 

[Syriusly]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

So when the majority of representatives in Chicago outlawed certain handguns.......you were down with that, siding against McDonald in Chicago v. McDonald?

Or did you side with the 'minority dictate' that found that such laws violated constitutional guarantees?

The citizens of San Francisco voted overwhelmingly to ban gun ownership in San Francisco- the courts(correctly in my opinion) struck down the 'will of the people'.

Happens all the time.

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty sure that wouldn't stand Constitutionally.

IF THE CONSTITUTION WAS CHANGED TO READ THAT WAY IT WOULD BE 100% CONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS WHAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION, NOT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE.

She is dealing in the real world of our Constitution while you are engaging in Constitutional fantasy

Even you would not want to live in the world you propose

that is the world we live you flaming asshole. We vote on rights, we vote on what is right and what is wrong.

there is no magical set or human rights, each society sets its own based on what the majority believe.

and for the last time------------MINORITY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY.

The majority establishes what rights the minority are allowed to have?

What country do you live in?

yes, thats way it works, a majority ratified the constitution and the bill of rights and every amendment to the constitution. A majority passed every law and statute at the federal, state, and local level. A majority of states could amend the constitution and change those rights if it so chose. A majority of states could ratify a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage.

thats the way a representative democracy works. We or our representatives vote and the majority wins.

No one demanded a constitutional amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages.

Those bans were overturned by the courts 30 years before the last such law was overturned by 'voters'.

Courts are a legitimate way to try to overturn what people consider to be unconstitutional laws.

 

[Dana7360]

The Redfishes do not vote on that which is good and right when it comes to civil rights, otherwise many of us would be in the concentation camps of the far right reactionaries.

SCOTUS makes these decisions, and the Redfishes will be forced to kneel and confess their error.

wrong, I am all for equality in all things. I fully support the civil rights act, I want gays treated equally and fairly. Where we differ is that I do not believe that a gay union is a marraige or that society should consider gay unions equally acceptable and normal as man/woman marriages.

Thats what I believe, Last time I checked we have the right to our beliefs in this country.

What I find very dangerous is the idea that beliefs can be mandated by the government----------and thats what this whole gay marriage debate really boils down to.

No one is taking away your right to believe, simply not force others to conform to your religious belief. The argument over marriage equality is secular not religious. You won't have to marry someone of your own sex.

nope, you on the left want the government to punish anyone who does not believe as the government dictates.

have you read Orwell and Rand? they saw it coming and wrote about it, but you are too stupid to see what is being rammed up your ass.

Says one of the more stupid posters of the Board.

Marry whom you will, honey. That is not punishment. Punishment is you distorting truth and saying marriage equality harms you. The fuck it does.

I, and billions of other human beings, believe that gay marriage would harm society. Its as simple as that. You disagree and thats fine too. When free people disagree they vote on which way to go.

So, lets vote. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Can you tell me what harm it will do to society?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell the nation how gay marriage has harmed their heterosexual marriage.

Gay marriage has been legal in my state since 2012. I'm still waiting for any evidence it has harmed society.

You're going to have to get me some honest facts and proof of your claim because as far as I can see, you're full of garbage.

I already did vote. Marriage equality was on the ballot in my state in 2012. It passed with a good margin. I voted with the majority.

 

[Syriusly]

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

Yes. NYC is not the federal government. Cities and states have been restricting guns owners since the start of this nation.

So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?

If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?

I suggest you read the court decisions that upheld New York City's law as constitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

The Redfishes do not vote on that which is good and right when it comes to civil rights, otherwise many of us would be in the concentation camps of the far right reactionaries.

SCOTUS makes these decisions, and the Redfishes will be forced to kneel and confess their error.

wrong, I am all for equality in all things. I fully support the civil rights act, I want gays treated equally and fairly. Where we differ is that I do not believe that a gay union is a marraige or that society should consider gay unions equally acceptable and normal as man/woman marriages.

Thats what I believe, Last time I checked we have the right to our beliefs in this country.

What I find very dangerous is the idea that beliefs can be mandated by the government----------and thats what this whole gay marriage debate really boils down to.

No one is taking away your right to believe, simply not force others to conform to your religious belief. The argument over marriage equality is secular not religious. You won't have to marry someone of your own sex.

nope, you on the left want the government to punish anyone who does not believe as the government dictates.

have you read Orwell and Rand? they saw it coming and wrote about it, but you are too stupid to see what is being rammed up your ass.

Says one of the more stupid posters of the Board.

Marry whom you will, honey. That is not punishment. Punishment is you distorting truth and saying marriage equality harms you. The fuck it does.

I, and billions of other human beings, believe that gay marriage would harm society. Its as simple as that. You disagree and thats fine too. When free people disagree they vote on which way to go.

So, lets vote. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

The majority of Americans were against mixed race marriage until the 1990's- believing as you do about gay marriage that mixed race marriage would harm society.

The majority of Americans were wrong.

We live in a Constitutional Republic- the Constitution is there in part to protect us all from the idiocy of the majority- doesn't always work- look at the internment of American citizen's who were of Japanese descent- look at Dredd Scott- but role of the courts include deciding when a law is not constitutional.

And that is a good thing. Otherwise the Loving's marriage would not have been recognized in Alabama until at least the 1990's- if ever.

 

[Syriusly]

That's Public Accomodation Law territory. Don't like them, get your Representative to get rid of them.....INCLUDING the part that protects members of religions when they request services from businesses.

Most religious people will be smart enough not to patronize people who don't want them around. Only homosexuals evidently feel the need to force their morality on people.

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, if you are arguing what the hetero-fascists have against marriage equality, your side will lose, period.

"My" side is the side of using the constitution properly. If you want "my" side to lose, then you are an anti-american fuckwad.

Under your skin, hmm. Nope, your terms and definitions are not based in the American narrative and American law, including the Constitution.

Marty, you can have your own opinion, but not your own terms, definitions, and facts.

So I guess my views don't fit "the narrative" eh, comrade?

 

[martybegan]

What is it with these right wing conservatives?

They have the vocabulary of 13 year old boys on the school ground.

Is it just a limited vocabulary- or is it just a limited imagination- or is it because of stunted maturity?

It's just anger. I'm a hetero libertarian right wing christian conservative. He's mad cause his bigotry is being exposed. Where before it was the norm.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?

How can I be a bigot if I have been on record as saying that I have no issue if Gay marriage goes on the book via State legislative action, and that I would probably vote for it?

YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.

And I wouldn't have an issue working at a Gay wedding either. What I don't feel is the need to force my morality on others, more importantly I detest those who use the government to do it instead of doing it themselves.

I'm sorry, just exactly how do you want gays to force their states to hand them marriage licenses? Guns?

By convincing enough of their fellow citizens to vote people in who will change marriage laws.

 

[martybegan]

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

Yes. NYC is not the federal government. Cities and states have been restricting guns owners since the start of this nation.

So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?

If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?

First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.

Second, the 14th does not incorporation all of the federal restrictions to the states. If it incorporated the 2nd amendment it would have also said something like, nor shall the states infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Third, you "ask how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun." The same way any city sets up laws. It passes a law stating that you can't carry a handgun within the city limits then it enforces that law.

The wording of the 2nd amendment states the people's rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the 14th amendment precludes the States from "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." If that is the case, how can a State "infringe" on my right to carry a firearm. I'm not talking about making me get a CCW permit as infringing, NYC states I have to have a reason THEY approve of.

Easy. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the federal government stating that the federal government can't infringe, not a right granted by the federal government that can't be infringed. As much as I dislike it, the states, cities and such have always infringed on this right.

The document says nothing about restrictions by just the feds, it says the rights of the people cannot be infringed.

Its amazing you are arguing in favor of government power.

And btw, if this is all a snark attempt by a libertarian trying to be all smart, go fuck yourself. We have enough fake assholes on this site.