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

[Judicial review]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

 

[ScienceRocks]

America is becoming a country of fags and bulldykes. A fucking joke.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The center is the majority of Americans who support marriage equality.

The haters and losers are out of the far right.

SCOTUS will not go back to before marriage equality

 

[Pogo]

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

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The SCOTUS voted in favor of gay rights, because gay rights are supported by the constitution.

Gay rights are a social issue; if you are trying to legislate morality, e.g. social issues, the SCOTUS should do it's job and vote in favor of personal liberties and against the government injecting itself into your bedrooms.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

America is becoming a country of fags and bulldykes. A fucking joke.

So what it that to you? Why do you care? Is anyone telling YOU that you have to be gay? I hope not -- that would be a violation of your personal liberties, just like if you tried to tell them that they could not.

 

[Judicial review]

The center is the majority of Americans who support marriage equality.

The haters and losers are out of the far right.

SCOTUS will not go back to before marriage equality

The center is now more right leaning on most issues. Whether they are or not on this doesn't matter. This issue is a 50/50 split with science on the side of the right, which may sway this in their favor and be the deciding factor. That's why I believe the justices age and the generations they grew up in and the fact they sided with Obama on the ACA being a tax, makes me believe they want to seem fair and a balanced power and un political. Remember this isn't science this is people playing politics and requesting the same rights and other and taking it to a whole new level.

I could without question see them being bold and overrule the states.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Their job is not to be "unbiased" but rather to uphold the constitution. If their decisions fall one way or the other, then that's how the cookie crumbles.

Whats "biasedness?" Me thinks that's not a word.

 

[Judicial review]

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

Pay attention to what has happened on social issues since Bush chose Robers for cheif justice. There's been other appointments made as well. Yes they are more liberal. This will be a very close vote, but little factors like I mentioned above will decide this. Roberts strikes me as a justice that will balance things out and be that deciding vote yet again. He strikes me as more of a stay in the middle type of guy.

That Obamacare tax decision is the only one everybody remembers and will go down in history as a huge flop in favor to the left and this I could see going the complete other direction to the right. Supreme court has to keep it's reputation as the branch that keeps the government state or federal from over reaching. In this case the states that supported gay marriage could be seen as overreaching. This will put them in their place. The subsidy case that will be heard that involves feds overreaching i can easily see being in favor of the right as well to keep the federal government in check. This is what the judicial branch was meant to do.

 

[Agit8r]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Pay attention to what has happened since Bush chose Robers for cheif justice. There's been other appointments made as well. Yes they are more liberal. This will be a very close vote, but little factors like I mentioned above will decide this. Roberts strikes me as a justice that will balance things out and be that deciding vote yet again. He strikes me as more of a stay in the middle type of guy.

That Obamacare tax decision is the only one everybody remembers and will go down in history as a huge flop in favor to the left and this I could see going the complete other direction to the right. Supreme court has to keep it's reputation as the branch that keeps the government state or federal from over reaching. In this case the states that supported gay marriage could be seen as overreaching. This will put them in their place. The subsidy case that will be heard that involves feds overreaching i can easily see being in favor of the right as well to keep the federal government in check. This is what the judicial branch was meant to do.

Translation = the gub'ment needs to be kept in check when the right disagrees with it.

 

[Judicial review]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Kennedy strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Kennedy liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

 

[Agit8r]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Roberts strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Roberts liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

 

[Judicial review]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Roberts strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Roberts liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

 

[Agit8r]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Roberts strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Roberts liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

The Fourteenth Amendment does impose certain limitations on the power that states have over their citizens. Whether such limitations apply in this particular instance, is the question that the court will be answering.

 

[Judicial review]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Roberts strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Roberts liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

The Fourteenth Amendment does impose certain limitations on the power that states have over their citizens. Whether such limitations apply in this particular instance, is the question that the court will be answering.

No. I'll put it in more frank terms because this stuff is taken VERY seriously. The SC will be deciding whether to overrule a state or not to. If they do that is rarely seen power by the Judicial Branch which usually tends to stay out of this type of things, because they are aware they are supposed to be the weakest of the 3 branches. When things are this close they tend to balk as they "should". However, if they overule the states, then I'm on board with serious judicial reform in this country no matter my stance on this issue for or against.

 

[J.E.D]

That Obamacare tax decision is the only one everybody remembers and will go down in history as a huge flop in favor to the left .

Right.......nobody will remember Citizens United or a key section of the Voting Rights Act getting struck down - two huge decisions with major ramifications which were were big victories for conservatives. I mean, conservatives have been trying to gut the Voting Rights Act since it became law. Roberts court, conservative? Nah who would think that?

 

[Agit8r]

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Roberts strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Roberts liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

The Fourteenth Amendment does impose certain limitations on the power that states have over their citizens. Whether such limitations apply in this particular instance, is the question that the court will be answering.

No. I'll put it in more frank terms because this stuff is taken VERY seriously. The SC will be deciding whether to overrule a state or not to. If they do that is rarely seen power by the Judicial Branch which usually tends to stay out of this type of things, because they are aware they are supposed to be the weakest of the 3 branches. When things are this close they tend to balk as they "should". However, if they overule the states, then I'm on board with serious judicial reform in this country no matter my stance on this issue for or against.

There are numerous examples of the Supreme Court overruling state and local laws including the decision which made corporations "people" (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the reason that police read suspects their rights (Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as well as the various reasons that the state and local police must respect those rights, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc.

 

[LoneLaugher]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Biasedness? Really?

 

[LoneLaugher]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

What alternate reality do you live in? There are 5 conservative Justices, and 4 liberal justices. Kennedy leans right most of the time, but is occasionally the swing vote on social issues, and has written opinions in favor of gay rights decisions before. So--to answer your question--probably not.

Very true. However, Roberts strikes me as a man who wouldn't overrule a state as the constitution is to protect individuals and states from Federal overreach, meaning I don't see him saying the states that have voted against gay marriage to force them to do anything. Meaning - I could see him pussying out and not change anything and rule in favor of the states rights to do what the individual states want.

Like i said, we'll see how far Roberts liberal ties on social issues goes. He will be the deciding vote again.

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

Oh! The judicial branch means the courts? I always wondered what that meant! Thanks for the info, bro.

By the way..."interfearing" is an entirely appropriate word choice when it comes to this issue. Well done.