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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

False: "The center is now more right leaning on most issues."
False: "This issue is a 50/50 split with science on the side of the right,"
True: JW is playing politics
False: "I could without question see them being bold and overrule the states."

 

[Freewill]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? Especially gay marriage?

No one is getting into anyone's bedroom. Marriage is a legal situation set up by the government, it is only a right in that one can not discriminate due to race color or creed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not restricted to those categories as you well know.

 

[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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? Especially gay marriage?

No one is getting into anyone's bedroom. Marriage is a legal situation set up by the government, it is only a right in that one can not discriminate due to race color or creed.

I can, it is NOT mentioned, but neither are a lot of other specific rights. The ff realized that they could not possibly list all of our rights. This is a well documented fact.

 

[SwimExpert]

Does anyone have any links to the lower court rulings which are being appealed? All the talk about this has centered on people's personal feelings about same sex marriage. Nobody has any compelling arguments about the legal merits of the case.

I am a firm supporter of same sex marriage rights, but I'm having a hard time fathoming a way that the court will easily arrive at an end point that will involve those rights being blanketed across the entire country from the bench. The court has been crystal clear in the past that gay marriage is an issue states have the power to legislate. The only real exception to this general rule that seems legally defensible has been circumstances like California's Prop 8, which adds the caveat that once lawfully given, same sex marriage rights cannot be subsequently rescinded without running afoul of the 14th amendment. But nothing about that translates into an inherent constitutional right to same sex marriage. It will take some extremely impressive legal arguments to supersede the prevailing precedents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Will the left leaning supreme court..."

That you believe the Supreme Court is 'left leaning' is further evidence of your overall ignorance.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Marriage equality is the center position.
A majority favor it

The Equal Protection doctrine of the 14th Amendment will require SCOTUS to extend that right to ALL Americans no matter what state they live in.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Wait, hold up....

Did you just post something about having a "left-leaning Supreme Court"....
.... and then tell somebody else to 'pay attention'??

I just come here to watch the asylum. I thought I gave it up when I ditched TV. No such luck.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Nonstandard English.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

Here's the problem with that...

The Ideological Left are such due to the means through which their minds operate, which is what is known as Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear that Relativism bear little chance of ever serving justice.

 

[paperview]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

But how ADORABLE is it, that the Left simultaneously demands that the Constitution grants rights AND that any right not enumerated in the Constitution is a right purely because someone claims it to be... .

As simple a concept as God-given rights are... the Relativists are simply INCAPABLE of understanding it.

(Probably the evil...)

 

[paperview]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

I think you are right on this one - and I don't even hate it.

 

[Freewill]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nothing in there covers marriage. What was originally said was that the COTUS grants the right of gay marriage. You have to admit that isn't so. The 9th amendment is clear, the Bill of Rights is not to limit rights just because there are not listed. BUT it does not thus grant rights because they are not listed. If marriage was a right, other then not being able to discriminate against due to race, color or creed, then it could never be denied.

 

[Freewill]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? Especially gay marriage?

No one is getting into anyone's bedroom. Marriage is a legal situation set up by the government, it is only a right in that one can not discriminate due to race color or creed.

I can, it is NOT mentioned, but neither are a lot of other specific rights. The ff realized that they could not possibly list all of our rights. This is a well documented fact.

Ok, then, you first statement that it is supported by the COTUS was incorrect, agreed.

 

[paperview]

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.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nothing in there covers marriage. What was originally said was that the COTUS grants the right of gay marriage. You have to admit that isn't so. The 9th amendment is clear, the Bill of Rights is not to limit rights just because there are not listed. BUT it does not thus grant rights because they are not listed. If marriage was a right, other then not being able to discriminate against due to race, color or creed, then it could never be denied.

The Supreme Court has already declared numerous times Marriage is a Right.

Tout Fini.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

With support for same sex marriage now over 50%, it is no longer a 'liberal' position:

 

[Judicial review]

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.

It's rare, which is what I said. They don't like to do it.