A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

[SwimExpert]

1. you called Trout's post idiotic.....i called Kennedy's logic idiotic.....

2. relevant because race is a characteristic of a protected class.....therefore interracial marriages were deemed lawful.....Kennedy somehow concocted that homosexuality is a characteristic of a protected class.....idiotic....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Kennedy never identifies homosexuals as a protected class. The reasoning for the decision is based on discrimination between citizens of different states. The court determined that the federal government could not discriminate between one state's legally recognized marriages, and another state's legally recognized marriages. If the federal government is going to afford tax breaks for couples in Texas who are married under the laws of that state, it must afford equal treatment to couples in Massachusetts who are married under the laws of that state. Failing to do so was a violation of equal protection and due process.

That's not idiotic reasoning. That's sound, conservative reasoning. If the states chose to recognize gay marriage, the federal government had no constitutional power to dis-recognize those marriages.

You are entirely confused, mixing up strict scrutiny (which is the standard of review for cases involving a suspect class) with rational basis review. Rational basis review is the lowest standard used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law that is challenged. Every constitutional challenge of a law results in rational basis review, unless a higher level of scrutiny is identifiably warranted. The court's analysis determined that the Defense of Marriage Act failed rational basis review.

So there ya go, idiot....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. you called Trout's post idiotic.....i called Kennedy's logic idiotic.....

2. relevant because race is a characteristic of a protected class.....therefore interracial marriages were deemed lawful.....Kennedy somehow concocted that homosexuality is a characteristic of a protected class.....idiotic....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Kennedy never identifies homosexuals as a protected class. The reasoning for the decision is based on discrimination between citizens of different states. The court determined that the federal government could not discriminate between one state's legally recognized marriages, and another state's legally recognized marriages. If the federal government is going to afford tax breaks for couples in Texas who are married under the laws of that state, it must afford equal treatment to couples in Massachusetts who are married under the laws of that state. Failing to do so was a violation of equal protection and due process.

That's not idiotic reasoning. That's sound, conservative reasoning. If the states chose to recognize gay marriage, the federal government had no constitutional power to dis-recognize those marriages.

You are entirely confused, mixing up strict scrutiny (which is the standard of review for cases involving a suspect class) with rational basis review. Rational basis review is the lowest standard used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law that is challenged. Every constitutional challenge of a law results in rational basis review, unless a higher level of scrutiny is identifiably warranted. The court's analysis determined that the Defense of Marriage Act failed rational basis review.

So there ya go, idiot....

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/

 

[LordBrownTrout]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

English please.

I believe he's referring to the fact that sometimes the Supreme Court departs from stare decisis and issues a ruling that essentially invalidates a previous ruling. In this case, he fails to comprehend the concept of stare decisis and the effect of a Supreme Court decision which seems to contradict with an earlier ruling.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not imply that the Supreme Court is infallible, nor does it carve in stone any opinion delivered from the Supreme Court, nor does it prevent a future court from finding a precedent from a previous case to be either inapplicable or in error. Stare decisis is a concept that states that in order to met out justice accurately and fairly courts should stand behind that which was previously decided (i.e. not disturb that which has already been settled), and that especially courts of lower jurisdiction should not generally ignore previous precedents of higher courts without a compelling case being offered. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions disregarded past precedents when the sitting court found them to be poorly decided and failing to fully recognize the rights of the people.

That being said, Trout is being especially idiotic by invoking prohibition as his example. Prohibition was brought about via constitutional amendment, for which there could be no meaningful court challenge. The end of prohibition 13 years later was similarly brought about by constitutional amendment. Despite the repeal of the 18th amendment, prohibition remains a constitutionally permissible action, upon action by the government. In many areas of the country alcohol remains illegal to this day.

so what was the precedent in the DOMA case where Kennedy magically made gays into a protected class....? talk about reaching for the idiotic....

Swim just proved my point. Lol.

 

[SwimExpert]

Swim just proved my point. Lol.

Your point being what? That the Supreme Court was not actually involved in "upholding" prohibition, just to retract itself later?

 

[JakeStarkey]

While we're reminiscing on previous SC rulings, lets not forget about the SC upholding prohibition and then having it smacked back in their face thirteen years later.

Thank you for the rare exception that proves the case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Barack Obama can ignore the law--and has done so on several occasions--why can't Kim Davis? Why isn't Obama in jail for ignoring laws that are far more important?

False premise from which flows a false equivalency.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

1. you called Trout's post idiotic.....i called Kennedy's logic idiotic.....

2. relevant because race is a characteristic of a protected class.....therefore interracial marriages were deemed lawful.....Kennedy somehow concocted that homosexuality is a characteristic of a protected class.....idiotic....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Kennedy never identifies homosexuals as a protected class. The reasoning for the decision is based on discrimination between citizens of different states. The court determined that the federal government could not discriminate between one state's legally recognized marriages, and another state's legally recognized marriages. If the federal government is going to afford tax breaks for couples in Texas who are married under the laws of that state, it must afford equal treatment to couples in Massachusetts who are married under the laws of that state. Failing to do so was a violation of equal protection and due process.

That's not idiotic reasoning. That's sound, conservative reasoning. If the states chose to recognize gay marriage, the federal government had no constitutional power to dis-recognize those marriages.

You are entirely confused, mixing up strict scrutiny (which is the standard of review for cases involving a suspect class) with rational basis review. Rational basis review is the lowest standard used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law that is challenged. Every constitutional challenge of a law results in rational basis review, unless a higher level of scrutiny is identifiably warranted. The court's analysis determined that the Defense of Marriage Act failed rational basis review.

So there ya go, idiot....

Absolutely not. Judges have the power to interpret what the law is....not what they deem it to be. There is a difference and of course you cant comprehend it.

 

[SwimExpert]

1. you called Trout's post idiotic.....i called Kennedy's logic idiotic.....

2. relevant because race is a characteristic of a protected class.....therefore interracial marriages were deemed lawful.....Kennedy somehow concocted that homosexuality is a characteristic of a protected class.....idiotic....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Kennedy never identifies homosexuals as a protected class. The reasoning for the decision is based on discrimination between citizens of different states. The court determined that the federal government could not discriminate between one state's legally recognized marriages, and another state's legally recognized marriages. If the federal government is going to afford tax breaks for couples in Texas who are married under the laws of that state, it must afford equal treatment to couples in Massachusetts who are married under the laws of that state. Failing to do so was a violation of equal protection and due process.

That's not idiotic reasoning. That's sound, conservative reasoning. If the states chose to recognize gay marriage, the federal government had no constitutional power to dis-recognize those marriages.

You are entirely confused, mixing up strict scrutiny (which is the standard of review for cases involving a suspect class) with rational basis review. Rational basis review is the lowest standard used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law that is challenged. Every constitutional challenge of a law results in rational basis review, unless a higher level of scrutiny is identifiably warranted. The court's analysis determined that the Defense of Marriage Act failed rational basis review.

So there ya go, idiot....

Supreme Court Declares Gays a Protected Class

I gave you a link to the actual written opinion of the court. You retort with a cheap headline on an obscure blog? That is......idiotic!

You seem to think that just because the word "class" appears in the decision, it automatically refers to a "protected class." And really, it just goes to show how much of a sloppy, uneducated, good for nothing backwoods ignorant redneck you are.

"Class" is a term that is found in legalese to refer to any group of people, who can be grouped together based on some defining characteristic. One commonly known example is the term "class action lawsuit" where a cause of action is undertaken on behalf of all individuals who belong to a certain class (say, consumers who took a certain prescription medication and suffered substantial adverse effects traceable to negligence by the manufacturer), even though each and every individual member of the class might not actually be involved in the case.

The usage of the terminology "class" comes from logic. In logic, "class" refers to all objects that would meet a certain given definition, and is especially useful for discussing certain logical principles. For example, "dogs" represent one class of objects, while "cats" represent a different class, with neither class having any common members. But "mammals" represents a class to which all dogs belong and all cats belong as well. Students who understand this can use Venn Diagrams to graph categorical syllogisms, and master other conceptual fundamentals of logic. Students who don't understand classes end up sounding alot like you, Eagle.

Now, all of this simply addresses the definition of the term "class" as it is used in legalese. It does not even begin to address the legal merits (i.e. the lack thereof) to the suggestion that Kennedy identified homosexuals as a protected class. And to that end, your suggestion becomes even more idiotic, and an even deeper demonstration that you're an uneducated slob. Protected classes receive special consideration when a law is challenged as a violation of constitutionally mandated due process and equal protection. When a law is alleged to be unconstitutional for violating equal protection for a protected class, the level of review is known as strict scrutiny. This is the highest level of review, and is quite a formidable challenge to meet. However, strict scrutiny is not applied in the Windsor case. Kennedy applies rational basis review. This is the lowest level of scrutiny for a law that has its constitutionality challenged for due process violations. (Between rational basis and strict scrutiny is the medium level "intermediate scrutiny.") Rational basis scrutiny is a very low level of review, and merely requires that a hypothetical rational basis by which the law in question could serve a legitimate government interest. This level of review is so low that the burden of proof falls partially on the court itself! Even when the government fails to produce a rational basis in defense of a law, the court is obliged to attempt to find a rational basis on its own accord to explain how the law might serve a legitimate government interest. Despite this low threshold, there are many laws that fail to live up to it. Because of the low threshold, rational basis is an entirely inappropriate standard for addressing alleged due process and/or equal protection violations against suspect classes. The fact that Kennedy applies rational basis review is indisputable proof that he was not addressing a suspect class.

Thus, Kennedy's usage of the term "class" to refer to the class of homosexual people, does not in any way imply that homosexual are a protected class. It is merely a common, and extraordinarily mundane, reference to a certain group of people. If there is a lawyer anywhere in the country who reads Windsor and believes that Kennedy's usage of the term "class" created homosexuals into a protected class, then do not ever hire that guy for legal council ever!! And you probably shouldn't hire him to make you tacos either, because he's probably a little too stupid to cook the meat thoroughly. Indeed, the suggestion is ridiculous, so asinine, so idiotic, that any first semester law student would be embarrassed for you when hearing you make such an argument, and most lay people of at least a 7th grade education level would heartily laugh at you for being too fucking stupid!