BREAKING: Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage Case

[Dante]

Derideo_Te if you are a serious person who would rather educate yourself than remain ignorant of what legal scholars believe, view the video, read the transcript

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org

Having watched the entire video I can make the following observations;

1. Professor Tribe is an astute observer of the court and well versed in it's history.

2. He did highlight what are clearly exceptions to bias but he also substantiated that the court is conservatively biased. e.g.

THE CURRENT COURT IS MOVING AGAIN RATHER FRIGHTENINGLY TO SOME PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF REVIEWING LAWS THAT AFFECT THE ECONOMY IN A SERIOUS WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED IN VERMONT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO JACK UP THE DRUGS BY GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS TO CERTAIN DOCTORS THAT THEY WOULD PRESCRIBE MORE COSTLY DRUGS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SOTOMAYOR JOINED THE CONSERVATIVES ON THAT AND JUSTICE BREYER WENT ALMOST POINTED. HE SAID THIS IS THE RETURN OF WHAT WAS CALLED THE LOCHNER ERA THE PERIOD FROM THE 1890s AND 1937 WHEN THE COURT WAS STRIKING DOWN ECONOMICS REGULATIONS RATHER LOOSELY. BECAUSE IF YOU STRIKE DOWN IN AND ECONOMIC REGULATION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH SPEECH IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT DEALS WITH INFORMATION IN OUR SOCIETY IS AT THE HEART OF ALMOST EVERYTHING. AND USING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT WAY COULD GIVE THE COURT THE KIND OF COVER THAT IS PRESUPPOSED IN YOUR QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THE FEAR IN OUR ECONOMIC LIVES IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PREMISE OF LIBERTY AND OTHER PEOPLE THINK THAT MEANINGFUL LIBERTY REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. THEY MIGHT RATHER DANGEROUSLY IN THE DIRECTION THAT IN 1937 WE ABANDONED​

3. This link does not substantiate your claim that my opinion is "uninformed and confused". While the Professor has a far more indepth knowledge base of the history of the SCOTUS than myself (hardly surprising given what he has done for a living versus what I have done) but he didn't say anything that was outside my understanding of how the justices make their decisions. In that respect what he did say confirmed a lot of what I already knew.

4. Many of the examples he gave substantiated my opinion of the court's conservative bias. There were very few exceptions and most of those centered around voting anomalies in the positions taken by the justices on certain decisions that were counter to their perceived liberal/conservative positions.

So thank you for providing one single example of a legal scholar and one that actually substantiated that I am neither "uninformed" or "confused" in this matter.

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.

Citizens United was a partisan decision.

Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.

Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.

Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.

I bet Illman thinks wingers do not hide behind the flag too

 

[rightwinger]

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.

Citizens United was a partisan decision.

Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.

Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.

Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.

Of course they are.......and they are taking a conservative standpoint
Hence the partisan court

 

[Dante]

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

I am not the only one who sees those as partisan decisions.

That's ok. A multiple number of folks "seeing" decisions as "partisan decisions" also doesn't make it so.

Quantifying the decisions with actual numbers does.

Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda

Yet, jurisprudence scholarship does suggest that something has changed: the court is becoming more partisan. According to a 2009 study conducted by Richard Posner and William Landes, John Robert’s court has the most partisan bench in history. The rising wave of partisanship that has swept through Congress and the White House is matched by the growing polarization of the Supreme Court.


How the Supreme Court Justices Line Up Source: Pew Research Center

The growing polarization manifests itself in the long string of 5-to-4 decisions made by the Roberts Court. In two of the most recent courts, more than 20 percent of all decisions decided by 5-to-4 votes, and that means that the rulings that have the greatest potential to influence the lives of the American public are regularly decided by the narrowest margin. Furthermore, legal scholars consider those narrow 5-to-4 decisions to be the most political, while research shows that those rulings often overturned by later courts. Even more importantly, they do not convey the same moral authority as more unanimous opinions.

That concerns Chief Justice John Roberts, whose court has decided more cases by the 5-to-4 margin than any other. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen in 2006. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.” During his 2005 confirmation hearing he also told lawmakers that he would attempt to implement “a greater degree of coherence and consensus in the opinions of the court,” citing former Chief Justice Earl Warren’s leadership in Brown v. Board of Education as an example.

The Roberts Court’s partisan, 5-to-4 decisions have upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate as well as an individuals’ right to gun ownership, limited class-action suits as well as an employee’s right to file a pay discrimination, and allowed unlimited corporate and union campaign spending. Votes on immigration, arbitration rights, voting rights, and the legality of legislative prayer were similarly divided.

Unsurprisingly, analysis conducted by Posner and Landes showed that the more ideologically polarized the Court is — meaning the greater the divide between the most conservative justice and the most liberal justice — the more often cases are decided by a 5-to-4 margin. This court is also the most conservative since the New Deal. Posner and Landes ranked 43 Supreme Court justices who served between 1937, when dissents were rare and justices rarely divided along party lines, and 2006, in terms of political ideology. They found that four of the five most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and William Rehnquist– were sitting on the bench as of 2005, while the current liberal-leaning justices do no place in the top five. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only sitting judge to rank among the top ten most liberal justices.​

Read more: Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda

That is still folks deciding that a decision is left or right as the basis for their assigning of values to the respective decisions.

I suspect the process might come down more to the notion that the liberal jurists are prone to ignoring the strictures of the Constitution BECAUSE the legislation that made the laws or the policies that implemented the laws were political in nature AND willfully disobedient to the Constitutional strictures. Therefore, any ruling that properly tries to weight the Constitutional commands in the analysis would APPEAR to be a partisan decision.

It is fallacious to believe that justices would never allow their personal biases to influence their decisions. They are just as human as you and I and that is reflected in the way they vote. When you see a preponderance of decisions were both sides agree then that is an indication that it was decided on Constitutional merits. On the other hand when you see split decisions that is an indication of a polarized court that is making political decisions.

What we have today is a SCOTUS that reflects Republican appointments to the bench since they have been in the Oval office for 20 of the last 34 years.

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.

Of course they are.......and they are taking a conservative standpoint
Hence the partisan court

Conservative political stance? What about a texualist stance, a strict constructionist stance? Political versus judicial philosophy

 

[Dante]

The problem with linking all this\:

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. -- Citizens United was a partisan decision. -- Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. -- Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. -- Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

---------

define partisan. partisan what?

Most conservative by what standard? Conservative rulings? Conservative Justices?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.

Of course they are.......and they are taking a conservative standpoint
Hence the partisan court

That is not a sign of partisanship. It is a sign of honoring your oath.

Ok. Maybe honoring your oath vs ignoring it is a partisan thing. The right honors its oath. The left honors the banner of liberalism, instead.

 

[Dante]

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.

Of course they are.......and they are taking a conservative standpoint
Hence the partisan court

That is not a sign of partisanship. It is a sign of honoring your oath.

Ok. Maybe honoring your oath vs ignoring it is a partisan thing. The right honors its oath. The left honors the banner of liberalism, instead.

and here is where Liability loses people and touch with reality/

 

[Igrok_]

Why is being a gay so interesting thing in your country and all over the West? That's the point? It seems like gays are treated like extraordinary, above-average talented people or something else, so all the society have to carry about them and discuss very thoroughly

outside of the west, where is this not so?

everywhere outside the west it is not so. Neither China, nor Arabic countries, nor Russia or India are jealous about this theme

 

[Igrok_]

also, think that 100 years or even 60 ago this subject wasn't in the center of attention in the west too

 

[rightwinger]

Why is being a gay so interesting thing in your country and all over the West? That's the point? It seems like gays are treated like extraordinary, above-average talented people or something else, so all the society have to carry about them and discuss very thoroughly

outside of the west, where is this not so?

everywhere outside the west it is not so. Neither China, nor Arabic countries, nor Russia or India are jealous about this theme

So we should model ourselves after Russia, China and the Arabic countries?

 

[Seawytch]

The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!

I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.

How a case is being argued is how it gets to the Court.

Saying they have pussied out, shows ignorance about how the system works. When you try and psychoanalyze you fail

The SCOTUS could have ended this once and for all and ruled on Prop 8...they didn't...they pussied out.

How? Traditionally the Court does not and shouldn't just do anything it wants. although in a few cases it looks like a split majority has. Are you saying a faction within the Court should have acted as one did in Bush v Gore?

What exactly were the constitutional issue(s) regarding Prop 8? Do you even know? If not stick with the political arguments in the politics forum.

The SCOTUS could have chosen to rule on Prop 8. They did not, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The lower court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional so that is where it stands. The SCOTUS pussied out when Prop 8 came to them. They could have ended the debate once and for all by hearing and ruling on Prop 8.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS could have chosen to rule on Prop 8. They did not, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The lower court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional so that is where it stands. The SCOTUS pussied out when Prop 8 came to them. They could have ended the debate once and for all by hearing and ruling on Prop 8.

Interesting point to consider. The SCOTUS vacated the 9th Circuits ruling in the case because those defending the measure lacked standing. During the trial those defending the measure were not state representatives and were backers of the proposition, the SCOTUS could have vacated the District Court ruling but choose not to do that. Meaning SSCM remained valid in California based on the District Court ruling.

They could have vacated BOTH the Circuit Court and Distirct Court ruling and remained the case back to the District Court for "retrial" based on the case being processed by State defenders. (Of course if they choose not to defend the law then the District Court would need to issue a new summary judgement.)


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!

I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.

How a case is being argued is how it gets to the Court.

Saying they have pussied out, shows ignorance about how the system works. When you try and psychoanalyze you fail

The SCOTUS could have ended this once and for all and ruled on Prop 8...they didn't...they pussied out.

How? Traditionally the Court does not and shouldn't just do anything it wants. although in a few cases it looks like a split majority has. Are you saying a faction within the Court should have acted as one did in Bush v Gore?

What exactly were the constitutional issue(s) regarding Prop 8? Do you even know? If not stick with the political arguments in the politics forum.

The SCOTUS could have chosen to rule on Prop 8. They did not, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The lower court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional so that is where it stands. The SCOTUS pussied out when Prop 8 came to them. They could have ended the debate once and for all by hearing and ruling on Prop 8.

I think they have been laying low waiting for public sentiment to turn on gay marriage. Now, over half the states and a majority of the public support it
They will finally rule once it is already a done deal in the country

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem with linking all this\:

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. -- Citizens United was a partisan decision. -- Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. -- Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. -- Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

---------

define partisan. partisan what?

Most conservative by what standard? Conservative rulings? Conservative Justices?

Partisan from a political standpoint as defined in the dictionary.

Partisan Define Partisan at Dictionary.com

partisan
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.​

Yes, you can argue that the justices do not show a "biased, emotional allegiance" for the most part but I can take a page out of the Prof's book and point to Scalia's dissension in the DOMA ruling. That was written in a fit of pique and his sarcasm backfired. That is not the first time that Scalia has voted on his emotions when it comes to gay issues and that fits the definition of partisan above.

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality Mother Jones

As far as Roberts being Liberatarian he is not alone. Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are too IMO. In fact the outrage when Roberts violated his Libertarianism by upholding the ACA was evident in their joint dissent. Libertarianism is partisan and has been the basis of the Republican deregulation and "free market" agenda for the past 3 decades. This failed partisan dogma is what imposed the horrendous Citizens United decision that will rival Dred Scott in infamy.

So yes, the common dictionary definition of partisan fits the SCOTUS decisions IMO. If you want to parse it into a more granular state then go right ahead. Personally I don't see the need but feel free to make your case.

 

[Dante]

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!

I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.

How a case is being argued is how it gets to the Court.

Saying they have pussied out, shows ignorance about how the system works. When you try and psychoanalyze you fail

The SCOTUS could have ended this once and for all and ruled on Prop 8...they didn't...they pussied out.

How? Traditionally the Court does not and shouldn't just do anything it wants. although in a few cases it looks like a split majority has. Are you saying a faction within the Court should have acted as one did in Bush v Gore?

What exactly were the constitutional issue(s) regarding Prop 8? Do you even know? If not stick with the political arguments in the politics forum.

The SCOTUS could have chosen to rule on Prop 8. They did not, leaving the lower court ruling in place.

Why do you think that was?

 

[Dante]

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!

I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.

How a case is being argued is how it gets to the Court.

Saying they have pussied out, shows ignorance about how the system works. When you try and psychoanalyze you fail

The SCOTUS could have ended this once and for all and ruled on Prop 8...they didn't...they pussied out.

How? Traditionally the Court does not and shouldn't just do anything it wants. although in a few cases it looks like a split majority has. Are you saying a faction within the Court should have acted as one did in Bush v Gore?

What exactly were the constitutional issue(s) regarding Prop 8? Do you even know? If not stick with the political arguments in the politics forum.

The SCOTUS could have chosen to rule on Prop 8. They did not, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The lower court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional so that is where it stands. The SCOTUS pussied out when Prop 8 came to them. They could have ended the debate once and for all by hearing and ruling on Prop 8.

When was the Court asked to rule on Prop 8 and what constitutional issue was the Court asked to rule on? Could you be a bit more specific?

 

[Dante]

The problem with linking all this\:

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. -- Citizens United was a partisan decision. -- Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. -- Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. -- Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

---------

define partisan. partisan what?

Most conservative by what standard? Conservative rulings? Conservative Justices?

Partisan from a political standpoint as defined in the dictionary.

Partisan Define Partisan at Dictionary.com

partisan
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.​

Yes, you can argue that the justices do not show a "biased, emotional allegiance" for the most part but I can take a page out of the Prof's book and point to Scalia's dissension in the DOMA ruling. That was written in a fit of pique and his sarcasm backfired. That is not the first time that Scalia has voted on his emotions when it comes to gay issues and that fits the definition of partisan above.

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality Mother Jones

As far as Roberts being Liberatarian he is not alone. Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are too IMO. In fact the outrage when Roberts violated his Libertarianism by upholding the ACA was evident in their joint dissent. Libertarianism is partisan and has been the basis of the Republican deregulation and "free market" agenda for the past 3 decades. This failed partisan dogma is what imposed the horrendous Citizens United decision that will rival Dred Scott in infamy.

So yes, the common dictionary definition of partisan fits the SCOTUS decisions IMO. If you want to parse it into a more granular state then go right ahead. Personally I don't see the need but feel free to make your case.

You have backtracked so far it is difficult to understand where it all started. Pardon moi! Parsing words and phrases is what intelligent and informed people do. People like you will parse the actions and emotions of a Scalia in order to demonize him, yet you refuse to parse words and phrases when it can challenge your world view. Methinks you care NOT about truth, but about fighting windmills and other mythical enemies.

You list Saclia's emotional outburst. You mention Saclia's temperament. You never consider Scalia's defense of privacy rights which is stronger than every assumed liberal on the Court.

Roberts is NOT a libertarian in the sense you claim -- one-dimensional. The fact that your opinion is that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all libertarians shows your ignorance total delusion when it comes to judgement and observation.

When justices coldly consider cases and case law, they of course bring prejudices and more to their decision making, but unlike you, Dante agrees with most legal scholars that YOU ARE NUTS!

Just because you can type out words and create sentences doesn't make you a credible speaker. Your shit is all over the place. You're an embarrassment to web posters everywhere. As a matter of fact I'd you from the interweb(s) if I could. You're an infectious agent polluting the web polity

 

[Derideo_Te]

The problem with linking all this\:

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. -- Citizens United was a partisan decision. -- Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. -- Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. -- Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

---------

define partisan. partisan what?

Most conservative by what standard? Conservative rulings? Conservative Justices?

Partisan from a political standpoint as defined in the dictionary.

Partisan Define Partisan at Dictionary.com

partisan
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.​

Yes, you can argue that the justices do not show a "biased, emotional allegiance" for the most part but I can take a page out of the Prof's book and point to Scalia's dissension in the DOMA ruling. That was written in a fit of pique and his sarcasm backfired. That is not the first time that Scalia has voted on his emotions when it comes to gay issues and that fits the definition of partisan above.

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality Mother Jones

As far as Roberts being Liberatarian he is not alone. Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are too IMO. In fact the outrage when Roberts violated his Libertarianism by upholding the ACA was evident in their joint dissent. Libertarianism is partisan and has been the basis of the Republican deregulation and "free market" agenda for the past 3 decades. This failed partisan dogma is what imposed the horrendous Citizens United decision that will rival Dred Scott in infamy.

So yes, the common dictionary definition of partisan fits the SCOTUS decisions IMO. If you want to parse it into a more granular state then go right ahead. Personally I don't see the need but feel free to make your case.

You have backtracked so far it is difficult to understand where it all started. Pardon moi! Parsing words and phrases is what intelligent and informed people do. People like you will parse the actions and emotions of a Scalia in order to demonize him, yet you refuse to parse words and phrases when it can challenge your world view. Methinks you care NOT about truth, but about fighting windmills and other mythical enemies.

You list Saclia's emotional outburst. You mention Saclia's temperament. You never consider Scalia's defense of privacy rights which is stronger than every assumed liberal on the Court.

Roberts is NOT a libertarian in the sense you claim -- one-dimensional. The fact that your opinion is that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all libertarians shows your ignorance total delusion when it comes to judgement and observation.

When justices coldly consider cases and case law, they of course bring prejudices and more to their decision making, but unlike you, Dante agrees with most legal scholars that YOU ARE NUTS!

Just because you can type out words and create sentences doesn't make you a credible speaker. Your shit is all over the place. You're an embarrassment to web posters everywhere. As a matter of fact I'd you from the interweb(s) if I could. You're an infectious agent polluting the web polity

Thanks for the laugh.

Do you feel better for having vented your spleen?

I find it hard to take you seriously when you adopt unwarranted pretensions of superiority towards other posters that you know absolutely nothing about. Your use of ad homs further weakens your position(s). You have tacitly conceded that you cannot defend them by your puerile attempts to denigrate me. In essence you have retreated to the level of the lowest common denominator in this forum and that is a tacit admission of defeat on your part.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dante]

The problem with linking all this\:

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. -- Citizens United was a partisan decision. -- Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. -- Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. -- Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

---------

define partisan. partisan what?

Most conservative by what standard? Conservative rulings? Conservative Justices?

Partisan from a political standpoint as defined in the dictionary.

Partisan Define Partisan at Dictionary.com

partisan
noun
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.​

Yes, you can argue that the justices do not show a "biased, emotional allegiance" for the most part but I can take a page out of the Prof's book and point to Scalia's dissension in the DOMA ruling. That was written in a fit of pique and his sarcasm backfired. That is not the first time that Scalia has voted on his emotions when it comes to gay issues and that fits the definition of partisan above.

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality Mother Jones

As far as Roberts being Liberatarian he is not alone. Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are too IMO. In fact the outrage when Roberts violated his Libertarianism by upholding the ACA was evident in their joint dissent. Libertarianism is partisan and has been the basis of the Republican deregulation and "free market" agenda for the past 3 decades. This failed partisan dogma is what imposed the horrendous Citizens United decision that will rival Dred Scott in infamy.

So yes, the common dictionary definition of partisan fits the SCOTUS decisions IMO. If you want to parse it into a more granular state then go right ahead. Personally I don't see the need but feel free to make your case.

You have backtracked so far it is difficult to understand where it all started. Pardon moi! Parsing words and phrases is what intelligent and informed people do. People like you will parse the actions and emotions of a Scalia in order to demonize him, yet you refuse to parse words and phrases when it can challenge your world view. Methinks you care NOT about truth, but about fighting windmills and other mythical enemies.

You list Saclia's emotional outburst. You mention Saclia's temperament. You never consider Scalia's defense of privacy rights which is stronger than every assumed liberal on the Court.

Roberts is NOT a libertarian in the sense you claim -- one-dimensional. The fact that your opinion is that Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all libertarians shows your ignorance total delusion when it comes to judgement and observation.

When justices coldly consider cases and case law, they of course bring prejudices and more to their decision making, but unlike you, Dante agrees with most legal scholars that YOU ARE NUTS!

Just because you can type out words and create sentences doesn't make you a credible speaker. Your shit is all over the place. You're an embarrassment to web posters everywhere. As a matter of fact I'd you from the interweb(s) if I could. You're an infectious agent polluting the web polity

Thanks for the laugh.

Do you feel better for having vented your spleen?

I find it hard to take you seriously when you adopt unwarranted pretensions of superiority towards other posters that you know absolutely nothing about. Your use of ad homs further weakens your position(s). You have tacitly conceded that you cannot defend them by your puerile attempts to denigrate me. In essence you have retreated to the level of the lowest common denominator in this forum and that is a tacit admission of defeat on your part.

Have a nice day.

Your very welcome.

Dante's style may not be to your liking, but Dante is anything but weak in his argument(s).

When it become difficult to get across to a stubborn numbskull like yourself... bleh!

You know Dante is correct. You know you used partisan too broadly -- you acknowledged this in a roundabout way. no problem. You're a partisan hack who is slowly but surely coming around to see the light

 

[Silhouette]

I think they have been laying low waiting for public sentiment to turn on gay marriage. Now, over half the states and a majority of the public support it
They will finally rule once it is already a done deal in the country

Oh it "turned" all right. Like a bad cut of beef left in the sun too long..

Might want to read the poll results here: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 690 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum with 82% opposed to gay marriage being forced on churches.

...And the Bocott A&E Facebook page getting a million "likes" in less than 24 hours in support of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's stance against gay marriage....And the Chick Fil-A protest day:

Funny how for such a "popular cause"...Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit noted how even when it comes up for a regular vote, the LGBT activists quickly remove it from the ballot...Seems a popular win would only bolster their momentum...?

Page 25 of Opinion:
"..Ohio same-sex marriage advocates opted not to place the question on the 2014 state ballot despite collecting nearly twice the number of required signatures). What the Court recently said about another statewide initiative that people care passionately about applies with equal vigor here: “Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.” 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

It was removed from the ballot because the LGBT activists were deathly afraid their "everyone approves of gay marriage" smoke and mirrors campaign would be laid bare for all to see.

The evidence stands opposed to your conclusion "rightwinger"..

 

[Dante]

Derideo_Te venting spleen? you take yourself too seriously and in doing so take others the same.


stop projecting so much and it will open your mind. Having an open mind requires putting yourself aside