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

[Dante]

And you think this view is different than that of others? that sounds crazy. All you've done is state what everyone knows

I know other people think likewise, all of this is due to Skylar harping on how all of this is nothing more than my opinion.

it does appear you mix your opinion in with things and then backtrack

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

Symposium: In defense of Justice Kennedy’s soaring language
Posted Sat, June 27th, 2015 5:08 pm by Michael Dorf
Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University. He blogs at dorfonlaw.org.

In the nature of split decisions, the majority opinion makes an affirmative argument and the dissent criticizes that argument, with the majority responding, if at all, in footnotes and other asides. That pattern holds in Obergefell v. Hodges. In sometimes-soaring language, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion barely addresses the pointed and occasionally nasty critique leveled in four separate dissents, perhaps leaving the impression that nothing can be said in response.

That impression is false. None of the points made by the dissenters withstands critical scrutiny – not least the claim that because marriage originated as an institution to address accidental procreation by heterosexuals, a state has a rational (much less compelling) interest in forbidding gay and lesbian couples from participating in the modern institution of marriage.

Still less persuasive is the dissenters’ repeated insistence that this case differs from prior marriage cases because those cases did not involve the definition of marriage. To quote Justice Antonin Scalia’s acerbic dissent, “Huh?” Would the eight Justices who signed onto the fundamental rights portion of Loving v. Virginia have reached a different conclusion if the Virginia statute defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman of the same race?

Read this learned professor's critique of each of the dissenting opinions here... Symposium: In defense of Justice Kennedy’s soaring language

 

[Dante]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

 

[paddymurphy]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

 

[paddymurphy]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

 

[Pop23]

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!

Because you can't answer the original question and prefer strawman responses does not make me the troll.....

It has the opposite effect.

Laughing! So when I ask you what relevance your 'individually given' test has on the eligibility of a person to get married.......you can't answer.

Shocker.

It wasn't relevent to you supplying the answer now was it?

 

[Dante]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

sounds more like you are arguing over conservative constructionists versus liberal constructionists. there is nothing strict in your strict

would you allow the label strict vegan, for a person who claims to be a strict vegan and admits to sometimes drinking soups made with beef stock?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

 

[Pop23]

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"?

What protected classes are you referring to?

Thanks, now how do we know that "gay" exists?

 

[jillian]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

again... read Marbury v Madison.... it's never how our constitutional construction has been done.

come on marty.... what's is "DUE" process absent caselaw.

what is "EQUAL" protection absent caselaw.

you're demanding something that never existed.

now let me tell you what REALLY never existed...

corporations are not people with religious beliefs... at least not until hobby lobby was decided by rightwing activist judges

money is not speech or was not until citizens united because of rightwing activist judges

the highest courts of every state are the final determining stop in the application of that state's election law... except of course for bush v gore which, after being decided by rightwing activist judges who then turned around and said that decision applies to no other case ever.

there is no private right of gun ownership... or at least there wasn't until heller was decided by rightwing activist judges.

marriage equality? based on the precedent of loving v Virginia which found marriage to be a fundamental right which couldn't be abridged except for a significant state interest in the limitation.


now you getting it?

 

[jillian]

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.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

what are you blathering about?

 

[jillian]

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"?

What protected classes are you referring to?

Thanks, now how do we know that "gay" exists?

so you make a decision every day not to have sex with men?

 

[Rambunctious]

I don't care for the politics of Gay and Lesbians. For the most part they are willing to crush our nation in order to feel normal and be excepted into our society. They run to the polls and race to big government for every instance of negativity that crosses their path. They are a problem because of that.
I love this country and hate to see it corrupted in this way. It is a state issue not a federal one. Our highest court in the land was sullied beyond repair so gays can force you and me to except their life style. That would be easier to do if they weren't so militaristic and radical.
Be an American first! everything else comes in second.
Gay men and women know the Supreme court was dead wrong but because it worked out their way they are fine with it. That is a very dangerous attitude.

 

[Dante]

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.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

what are you blathering about?

thank you. THAT woman is annoyingly stuck on stupid (marty is a mary, no?)

 

[jillian]

I don't care for the politics of Gay and Lesbians. For the most part they are willing to crush our nation in order to feel normal and be excepted into our society. They run to the polls and race to big government for every instance of negativity that crosses their path. They are a problem because of that.
I love this country and hate to see it corrupted in this way. It is a state issue not a federal one. Our highest court in the land was sullied beyond repair so gays can force you and me to except their life style. That would be easier to do if they weren't so militaristic and radical.
Be an American first! everything else comes in second.
Gay men and women know the Supreme court was dead wrong but because it worked out their way they are fine with it. That is a very dangerous attitude.

who is "crushing our nation"?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

Why would one have to do that?

 

[Dante]

I don't care for the politics of Gay and Lesbians. For the most part they are willing to crush our nation...

Wow! Them be some powerful homos.

 

[jillian]

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.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

what are you blathering about?

thank you. THAT woman is annoyingly stuck on stupid (marty is a mary, no?)

i'm pretty sure marty is a he.

but that doesn't make him any more correct on this issue.