Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Dante]

How am I a radical?

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

If i'm reacting to the drivel being pushed by the modern progressive, I wear that label with honor.

Now you've crossed over into delusion

sorry

 

[Dante]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

 

[Skylar]

This is a pretty good definition.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Peopel!!! Look up Constitution Society and Jon Roland and Texas Libertarian Wack-a-doodles

Libertarian whackos go on about original intent nonsense with arguments only a child could think up. The link above speaks to militias and arms. It argues more about tyranny than about the real threats facing the colonials and early Americans.

Whiskey Rebellion? A militia was called up to put it down. The nuts focus on arms being needed to face down tyranny. They get stuck on the one amendment and like Bible thumpers at bible readings they seek hidden meanings that fit into their mind starved patterns.

Then libertarians affiliated with the Constitution Society practices the Paranoid Style in American Politics. They are laser focused on tyrannies that do not exist.

better to be hung up on the actual words of one actual amendment then the interpreted musings of un elected lawyers.

This is a demonstration of the absurdity of the literalist interpretation, where you can ONLY use the words of the constitution. Void of context, usage, history, or any other source.

Its long since been noted that your perception of the law is based on your assumption that your personal opinion defines every aspect of it. Alas, the law doesn't use your standard.

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

More accurately, its based on your perception of libertarianism. With you defining all legal terms, all legal standards, and the validity of all court rulings on any topic.

Alas, you do none of these things. Stripping the 'legal' from your 'legal arguments'. Its just you citing you. And we get that. It simply has nothing to do with our discussion.

 

[OKTexas]

If judges only made decisions based on black letter law and the Constitution, a majority ruling would be the exception, not the rule.

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.

I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.

No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.

And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?

And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.
5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.

Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

 

[martybegan]

I just gave the basics to you.

The idea is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and handguns, rifles (semi-automatic included) and shotguns are way way on the "permitted" side of the line.

And the constitution doesn't say any of it. It merely states 'arms'. If we're using a strictly literalist interpretation of the constitution...and the constitution draws no lines on what weapons constitute 'arms', then any such limitation is a matter of interpretation.

Not literalism.

In that case, then the interpretation has to lean towards more personal freedom and less government control, as "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

Then grenades, nuclear weapons, TOW missiles and shoulder mounted missile launchers that can take down a passenger jet.....available for sale at the local walmart next to the fishing poles and camping tents?

probably not, but I noticed you ignored my 2nd paragraph.

Tell me, why am I denied the right to carry a handgun by NYC?

Ask NYC.

And why would it 'probably not' be okay under the constitution for the general public to be sold every kind of arms? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with 20 megaton nuclear weapons for home defense? Or shoulder mounted rocket launchers that can target an airliner?

If we're using the literal interpretation of the constitution, what limits are placed on 'arms'?

Nice dodge.

first, considering a 20 megaton warhead costs several millions of dollars, I doubt we have to worry about Julio using it to stick up the local bodega.

And its a strict constructional interpretation of the constitution, not literal. there is a difference.

 

[martybegan]

How am I a radical?

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

If i'm reacting to the drivel being pushed by the modern progressive, I wear that label with honor.

Now you've crossed over into delusion

sorry

This coming from someone that refers to themselves in the 3rd person on a message board is tragically comical.

 

[Pop23]

It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.

No....you misunderstood...the discrimination was in gender....SSM was illegal but OSM was legal....one's gender choice for partner was a point of unConstitutionality by state governments when they restricted one gender vs another. That's been rectified. Hurrah!

nearly all people, regardless of gender, never felt this discrimination. Only a tiny group, gays, thought it was discriminatory. And that groups very existence is that of the question.

How do we test that this "gay" condition even exists? What is the gay test?

'Gay' isn't a requirement of any marriage. Straight or gay. So you're inventing imaginary requirements that neither the law nor any court ruling require.

Your imaginary requirements are legally irrelevant.

Strawman noted

So you admit that the sexuality of an individual is irrelevant to their ability to enter into marriage?

If so, your 'gay test' is likewise legally irrelevant. As it defines a criteria that isn't used to determine eligibility for marriage.

Next fallacy please. This is fun!

The context of your point would be relevent.

Love isn't a requirement, nor is sex or dignity.

I guess if this is your point, you can start discussing your perversion again.

 

[martybegan]

This is a pretty good definition.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Peopel!!! Look up Constitution Society and Jon Roland and Texas Libertarian Wack-a-doodles

Libertarian whackos go on about original intent nonsense with arguments only a child could think up. The link above speaks to militias and arms. It argues more about tyranny than about the real threats facing the colonials and early Americans.

Whiskey Rebellion? A militia was called up to put it down. The nuts focus on arms being needed to face down tyranny. They get stuck on the one amendment and like Bible thumpers at bible readings they seek hidden meanings that fit into their mind starved patterns.

Then libertarians affiliated with the Constitution Society practices the Paranoid Style in American Politics. They are laser focused on tyrannies that do not exist.

better to be hung up on the actual words of one actual amendment then the interpreted musings of un elected lawyers.

This is a demonstration of the absurdity of the literalist interpretation, where you can ONLY use the words of the constitution. Void of context, usage, history, or any other source.

Its long since been noted that your perception of the law is based on your assumption that your personal opinion defines every aspect of it. Alas, the law doesn't use your standard.

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

More accurately, its based on your perception of libertarianism. With you defining all legal terms, all legal standards, and the validity of all court rulings on any topic.

Alas, you do none of these things. Stripping the 'legal' from your 'legal arguments'. Its just you citing you. And we get that. It simply has nothing to do with our discussion.

Small "l" libertarian, not Big "L".

 

[Pop23]

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

There are no other groups that don't have some kind of test to determine that they are who they say they are.

What relevance does your 'group test' have with eligibility to be married?

Group test? All tests are given individually Derp.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Scalia and Thomas both demonstrated a clear bias as well. If you wanted Sotomayor and Ginsburg recused, then you'd also have to have Scalia and Thomas recused. Gays would have still won.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

Nope. Both made public statements against gays, showing a clear anti gay bias.

Their behaviors or the person?

 

[paddymurphy]

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.

I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.

No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.

And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?

And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.
5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.
Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

And it took the Supreme Court in Heller page after page to decipher the language of the Second Amendment; to explain what damn near every word meant. So much for black letter law that only needs to be applied. It has to be interpreted. Five justices have one interpretation and four have another. Just like in Obergefell.

 

[Dante]

How am I a radical?

oops!
Reactionary would have been a more fit label.

If i'm reacting to the drivel being pushed by the modern progressive, I wear that label with honor.

Now you've crossed over into delusion

sorry

This coming from someone that refers to themselves in the 3rd person on a message board is tragically comical.

Bob Dole

 

[paddymurphy]

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Scalia and Thomas both demonstrated a clear bias as well. If you wanted Sotomayor and Ginsburg recused, then you'd also have to have Scalia and Thomas recused. Gays would have still won.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

Nope. Both made public statements against gays, showing a clear anti gay bias.

Their behaviors or the person?[/Q

The person.

 

[Skylar]

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.

I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.

No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.

And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?

And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.

5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.

The 5th amendment restricts government action. It doesn't speak of 'self defense'. I just checked...there's no mention of it. It merely prevents the government from doing something without due process of law.

Show me where in the constitution that 'right to self defense with a fire arm' is mentioned. Specifically, literally and explicitly. So far your efforts have been rather......subjective and intepretative. And fail your 'letter of the constitution' standard utterly.

I'll even help. Here's the entire transcript of the Constitution:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Here's the entire transcript of the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Show me. Don't tell me.

Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

And where does the constitution make any mention of the 'knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain' in the right to bear arms? There's no mention of any of the interpretive jibber jabber you just offered.

Your standard is 'letter of the constitution'. Show me where nuclear weapons aren't arms under the constitution.....using the letter of the constitution. Not you citing you.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to define 'unreasonable' using the 'letter of the constitution' if its 'pretty clear'.

Show me. Don't tell me.

 

[martybegan]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

If judges only made decisions based on black letter law and the Constitution, a majority ruling would be the exception, not the rule.

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.

I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Black letter text? Like this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Denying gay people the ability to marry denies them equal protection of the law. It relegates them and their relationships to a lesser status. And it denies them "liberty". That is black letter law. Too bad you are not bright enough to understand these concepts and how they apply to the world we live in.

They had every right to marry under previous laws just as any other person of their gender and many availed themselves of that right. Behavior does not create a protected class.

 

[Skylar]

Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.

No. Because then the kooks would go after somebody else. Gays can handle it

There are no other groups that don't have some kind of test to determine that they are who they say they are.

What relevance does your 'group test' have with eligibility to be married?

Group test? All tests are given individually Derp.

And what relevance does your 'individually given' test have with eligibility to be married?

Laughing...I love trolling the trolls!

 

[Skylar]

it is based on a libertarian favoring strict constructional federalist view of the purpose of law and government.

English, please!!!

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

Then show us why nuclear arms aren't included in arms using the 'pretty simple' wording of the constitution.

If its all as simple as you pretend, this should be a cake walk. If not, you'll give us excuses for why you can't.

I know which outcome I'm betting on!

 

[Pop23]

Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.

Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.

I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.

Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.

Black letter text? Like this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Denying gay people the ability to marry denies them equal protection of the law. It relegates them and their relationships to a lesser status. And it denies them "liberty". That is black letter law. Too bad you are not bright enough to understand these concepts and how they apply to the world we live in.

They had every right to marry under previous laws just as any other person of their gender and many availed themselves of that right. Behavior does not create a protected class.

There are tests to determine who belongs within each protected class. These individuals can be determined by objective and reliable tests.

How does one test "gay"?

 

[OKTexas]

It was when the legal standing of that wedding was still pending in 48 States.

Not 48. And since it was legal in DC, what is your point?

Really, how many States had voluntarily adopted SSM at the time of the ruling and not had it imposed by some court?

14.

Don't think so, you got a list and how it was adopted.

Don't give a fuck what you think. You think I am wrong, prove it or fuck off.

I didn't make the claim, you did sweetie, now back it up.