Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Derideo_Te]

Sorry tard I am straight but am happy for the gay community get their rights, and as a side note bonus seeing you mutants pissed off

Well this thread obviously isn't for you then. It's for the tens of millions like me who aren't thrilled their state's adoption agencies will soon be sued, like florists and cake makers and photographers to promote a subversive deviant sex cult straight into positions of authority over impressionable children.

You may go. I'm talking to the multiple millions who are pissed off at their conservative party for using children as a political party favor when they were banking that it "will look like the liberals did this". Sorry. We know the four conservatives on the Court could've prevented this attrition of the most fundamentally conservative principle of all: Marriage.

This thread is for the chic fil a democrats and true conservatives of all walks to wake up and figure out the scum on the right of the aisle that's selling your morals down the river to the lavendar reicht of the far, far left.

So does this mean that Guno can't come to your pity party?

 

[Silhouette]

It's a big party. Tens of millions of angry voters who feel their conservative protectors have abandoned them are going to need a really large venue for our pity party. We'll drink "whine" and commiserate on how we'll get even at the polls.. But about Thanksgiving we'll be moving on to real tears for the children subjected to the gay sex fetish cult "as parents". I doubt "acceptance" is ever going to happen as to hurting kids.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

johnwk said: ↑

“One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was "rationally based" or "reasonable" to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to an arbitrarily answered question having nothing to do with whether or not a law is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution.”


Incorrect.

In order to pass Constitutional muster, in order for a law seeking to deny or restrict citizens' civil liberties to be valid, that law must not only be rationally based, but it must also be supported by objective, documented evidence in support of the denial or restriction of a civil right pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)).

Consequently, there is nothing 'arbitrarily' about a given level of judicial review, including a rational basis test. Indeed, as opposed to intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny, a rational basis review is the most lenient test, setting a very low standard of constitutionality where the law under review will likely be upheld.

With regard to the Marriage Cases, therefore, measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law and to access that marriage law they're eligible to participate in, the courts correctly and appropriately invalidated those measures because they lacked a rational basis, were devoid of objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law, and pursued no proper legislative end. These measures sought to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they were and to “classif[y] homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Ibid.


johnwk said: ↑

“These "tests" began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s.”


Also incorrect.

The rational basis test dates back to the end of the 19th Century, where the doctrine has been accepted and settled for over 100 years (see: Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis (1897)). Consequently attempts by dishonest conservatives to present the doctrine as some 'recent legal fabrication' is a lie, compounding the contempt most on the right have for the rights of other citizens, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no issue here that will affect the vote next month in a significant way.

The GOP leadership, as on matters of debt and budget, now know this issue is no longer a hot button one for the party.

Vote as you will, Sil, it matters not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no issue here that will affect the vote next month in a significant way.

The GOP leadership, as on matters of debt and budget, now know this issue is no longer a hot button one for the party.

Vote as you will, Sil, it matters not.

The OP is suffering under a delusion that he can influence "dem moderate" voters.

 

[mdk]

Conservative religious groups and a handful of Republican lawmakers decried the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow same-sex marriage rulings to stand in five states, saying it will help motivate voters to the polls in protest.

But most Republican leaders in Congress and elsewhere stayed relatively silent.. Conservatives decry Supreme Court s move on gay marriage - The Washington Post

This isn't from a shift in public opinion by the way. Look at the polling results on the top of this page: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
That 82% represents people who aren't really all that much about gay marriage, are they? Are people just going along with this without thinking? LOOK at those pictures in the OP here. THAT is the value system we are now assigning our orphans to. Sex in front of and with kids? Have we lost our collective mind? And REPUBLICANS sit quietly about this? Who are our conservatives?

I see you are still peddling that poll as proof that support for gay marriage is slipping, which is just hilarious. I voted no in that poll despite the fact that I am gay and married. You can support gay marriage and support the right of churches to marry or not marry anyone they wish. You don't want to believe that because it doesn't fit your rabidly anti-gay agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is goofy, you all know that.

The actual % among Americans to protect 1st Amendment private association in church is probably over 90%.

But that means nothing as to the % that support marriage equality.

Sil is unhappy is all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's a big party. Tens of millions of angry voters who feel their conservative protectors have abandoned them are going to need a really large venue for our pity party. We'll drink "whine" and commiserate on how we'll get even at the polls.. But about Thanksgiving we'll be moving on to real tears for the children subjected to the gay sex fetish cult "as parents". I doubt "acceptance" is ever going to happen as to hurting kids.

Mere demagoguery, devoid of facts or objective, documented evidence.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So you are saying your party threw your moral compass under the buss??

Maybe they were just tired of being in the closet

We all know you came out long ago idiot.

Sorry tard I am straight but am happy for the gay community get their rights, and as a side note bonus seeing you mutants pissed off

That just means you are nothing more than an idiot libtard.

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's a big party. Tens of millions of angry voters who feel their conservative protectors have abandoned them are going to need a really large venue for our pity party. We'll drink "whine" and commiserate on how we'll get even at the polls.. But about Thanksgiving we'll be moving on to real tears for the children subjected to the gay sex fetish cult "as parents". I doubt "acceptance" is ever going to happen as to hurting kids.

Mere demagoguery, devoid of facts or objective, documented evidence.

Then it would be perfect for libtards since you guys here facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of you on the far right can't critically think, obviously.

That's your problem, and that problem is no longer America's. Happy times.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's a big party. Tens of millions of angry voters who feel their conservative protectors have abandoned them are going to need a really large venue for our pity party. We'll drink "whine" and commiserate on how we'll get even at the polls.. But about Thanksgiving we'll be moving on to real tears for the children subjected to the gay sex fetish cult "as parents". I doubt "acceptance" is ever going to happen as to hurting kids.

Mere demagoguery, devoid of facts or objective, documented evidence.

Then it would be perfect for libtards since you guys here facts.

Then it would be perfect for libtards since you guys here facts

Deceleration Alert!

Pogo Statistikhengst

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The conservative justices knew a 5 – 4 majority would have upheld the lower courts' rulings invalidating measures denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

Indeed, 4 liberal justices could have voted to hear the Marriage Cases knowing that theirs would be the majority opinion, but sought instead to allow the lower courts to continue to address the issue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The conservative justices knew a 5 – 4 majority would have upheld the lower courts' rulings invalidating measures denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

Indeed, 4 liberal justices could have voted to hear the Marriage Cases knowing that theirs would be the majority opinion, but sought instead to allow the lower courts to continue to address the issue.

Which means that all 9 of the justices are essentially allowing the states to decide for themselves as per the DOMA decision. The lower courts are finding in favor of equal protection and thereby invalidating the unconstitutional gay marriage bans. That eliminates the "legislating from the bench" BS allegation that so many on the right use a cudgel to drive their voters to the polls.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The conservative justices knew a 5 – 4 majority would have upheld the lower courts' rulings invalidating measures denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

Indeed, 4 liberal justices could have voted to hear the Marriage Cases knowing that theirs would be the majority opinion, but sought instead to allow the lower courts to continue to address the issue.

Which means that all 9 of the justices are essentially allowing the states to decide for themselves as per the DOMA decision. The lower courts are finding in favor of equal protection and thereby invalidating the unconstitutional gay marriage bans. That eliminates the "legislating from the bench" BS allegation that so many on the right use a cudgel to drive their voters to the polls.

Correct.

The High Court is also assuming that should the issue come before other courts of appeals who have yet to hear a challenge to measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, that those courts would follow established precedent and invalidate such measures as well.

 

[J.E.D]

Whatever the motivation. I just cannot respect and more importantly support at the polls a party who knowingly allows the furthest liberal left damaging agenda to overtake it without so much as a *peep*.

Vote independants or simply don't show up. Send a goddamned message to the republicans that we no longer believe they are the conservative party..

Sounds good to me. I hope all Republicans feel the same and send a message on election day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GOP, thankfully, is no longer, on this issue, is the Party of Stupid.

Let's see if in lieu of attacking marriage equality, the dumbos on our far right attack the women's vote for letting such a thing happen.

 

[Stephanie]

Show me four conservative judges on the supreme court?

they have stacked the deck against us folks. live with that reality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Show me four conservative judges on the supreme court?

they have stacked the deck against us folks. live with that reality.

Actually there are five conservative justices on the Supreme Court, one of whom is not an ideologue.

And nothing is 'stacked against you,' whatever that's supposed to mean. That you and others on the right are hostile toward the civil liberties of gay Americans is repugnant to the Constitution, which is why laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are invalidated by the courts.

 

[Stephanie]

Show me four conservative judges on the supreme court?

they have stacked the deck against us folks. live with that reality.

Actually there are five conservative justices on the Supreme Court, one of whom is not an ideologue.

And nothing is 'stacked against you,' whatever that's supposed to mean. That you and others on the right are hostile toward the civil liberties of gay Americans is repugnant to the Constitution, which is why laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are invalidated by the courts.

lol your usual response. mob rules is ok as long it comes out in your alls, favor