Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy

[HikerGuy83]

Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country.

So what about those who want to engage in polygamy?

 

[pknopp]

So what about those who want to engage in polygamy?

Why should I care?

 

[HikerGuy83]

You have become your own worst nightmare. All along you have been insisting that Article 5 is the only lawful way to amend the constitution , Now you are citing the 9th Amendment which explicitly affirms that the Constitution protects unenumerated rights retained by the people. It was included as a rule of construction to ensure that the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill of Rights would not be interpreted as an exhaustive list, thereby "denying or disparaging" other rights that exist.

Those un-enumerated rights are the result of case law which in effect modifiies the Constitution as much as an amendment would. Is it possible that you do not see the contradiction. You continue to make a damned fool of yourself

Still waiting for you to own up to your bigotry and to stop hiding behind your bastardized and convoluted interpretation of the Constitution

Sorry, but you don't own the correct perspective, nor does anyone else. You get what the courts give you (and we are willing to tolerate...which in some cases we do for decades until another court says something different).

The 9th clears the way for amendments. It does not give the SCOTUS to decide that some dumbassed idea like the right to privacy suddenly appeared and now is the basis for constitutional law.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why should I care?

You are all about equal protection.

Or maybe you are not.

 

[pknopp]

You are all about equal protection.

Or maybe you are not.

I have no control over it. Pass it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Same bullshit different day.

You completely ignore the validity of judicial review established by Marbury V, Madison​

​

You deny or don't understand that the 14th Amendment extends the bill of rights to the states and requires that states honor due process and equal protection under the law,​

​

You don't accept the validity of case law as carrying the force of law​

​

You are ignorant of the concept of un-enumerated rights .​

​

The 10 th Amendment is not superior to the 14th and rights reserved to the sates must be excercized in a constitutional manner protecting due process and equal protection​

​

You reject the concept of Scrutiny established by Supreme Court case United States v. Carolene "exacting judicial scrutiny" for fundamental rights, with its modern application solidifying in the late 1950s and 1960s, particularly in First Amendment and then Equal Protection cases like those involving race.​

I do not believe for a nano second that you really support gay marriage in the states that amended their constitutions. You are motivated by bigotry which you revealed when you moronically and insensitively stated that gays already had equal rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

The same leftist game plan and argument for getting the courts to give them what they want instead of manning up and going through the duly elected legislature of the country like most law abiding people do.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I have no control over it. Pass it.

So you are not about equal protection.

Got it

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because they don't reside in the asses of the SCOTUS. Unlike Douglas who was constantly pulling stuff out of his, the current court understands that isn't how it works.

Do you like the fact that you can choose to travel and live wherever you like ? Got news for you, that is an unenumerated right , Would you like the Supreme Court to shove that back up their asses so that the state can require you to obtain permission before you can more?

The right to live where you wish (often framed as the right to "establish a home" or travel) is generally considered an unenumerated right, protected under the U.S. Constitution, particularly through the Ninth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as a fundamental liberty not explicitly listed but retained by the people, preventing arbitrary government interference.
Why it's an unenumerated right:

• Ninth Amendment: Explicitly states that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution doesn't mean other rights retained by the people don't exist.
• Fundamental Liberty: The Supreme Court and legal scholars recognize this right as a core aspect of personal liberty, essential for family life, property, and autonomy, even if not in the Bill of Rights.
• Substantive Due Process: The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects these fundamental, unenumerated rights from state infringement, preventing arbitrary government actions that would restrict where people can live or establish homes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The same leftist game plan and argument for getting the courts to give them what they want instead of manning up and going through the duly elected legislature of the country like most law abiding people do.

Are you familiar with the concept of checks and balances? Ever hear of judicial review/ .

 

[johnwk]

A number of states have adopted measures to have Obergefell v. Hodges reversed​

.

I didn’t know that a number of States have actually adopted resolutions condemning Obergefell v. Hodges as being at odds with our Constitution and are looking to have it overturned. See: Obergefell Ruling in Question as Lawmakers Push to Revisit Gay Marriage Rights

"Recent state-level efforts aim to challenge the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, fueled by Justice Thomas's 2022 call to revisit such rulings. Concerns arise over LGBTQ rights if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, as federal protections, like the Respect for Marriage Act, have limitations. Advocates emphasize vigilance and community action amidst fears of legal and societal regression."

Also see IDAHO’s HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO.1

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A number of states have adopted measures to have Obergefell v. Hodges reversed​

.

I didn’t know that a number of States have actually adopted resolutions condemning Obergefell v. Hodges as being at odds with our Constitution and are looking to have it overturned. See: Obergefell Ruling in Question as Lawmakers Push to Revisit Gay Marriage Rights

"Recent state-level efforts aim to challenge the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, fueled by Justice Thomas's 2022 call to revisit such rulings. Concerns arise over LGBTQ rights if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, as federal protections, like the Respect for Marriage Act, have limitations. Advocates emphasize vigilance and community action amidst fears of legal and societal regression."

Also see IDAHO’s HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO.1

Still waiting for you to grow a spine and explain your obsession with getting gay marriage overturned. It's not about the constitution. It's personal. It's bigotry . But you do not have the guts to admit it

 

[johnwk]

Are you familiar with the concept of checks and balances? Ever hear of judicial review/ .

Have you ever heard of judicial tyranny?

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Why do you have a problem with Article V, which is the only lawful way to add or expand federally protected rights?

Why do you have a problem with the Tenth Amendment leaving to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, “. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Do you like the fact that you can choose to travel and live wherever you like ?

Sure.

Got news for you, that is an unenumerated right

Has it ever been challenged? Seems like we had a class of people who, for quite some time, didn't have that right despite the 14th amendment being in effect.

Would you like the Supreme Court to shove that back up their asses so that the state can require you to obtain permission before you can more?

They never established that right. In fact, just the opposite. But they can still shove that penumbra (as Dumbass Douglass called them) of rights "hiding in the shadows" all the same.

Explicitly states that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution doesn't mean other rights retained by the people don't exist.

And has always been used in conjunction with other amendments. It has NEVER been the sole support for any decision of the court. The amendment simply keeps the amendment process open. That's it. It was never intended for anything else that has been shown or recognized by the court.

The Supreme Court and legal scholars recognize this right as a core aspect of personal liberty, essential for family life, property, and autonomy, even if not in the Bill of Rights.

Fundamental Liberty is a nice vauge concept that is constantly being battled over. The so-called right to privacy that the 73 court hid behind was essentially deflated when Dobbs was used to send the abortion issue back to the states...where it belonged.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects these fundamental, unenumerated rights from state infringement, preventing arbitrary government actions that would restrict where people can live or establish homes.

Yeah, that's nice.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Are you familiar with the concept of checks and balances? Ever hear of judicial review/ .

Absolutely know he concept. Just finished reading some of the federalist papers on the subject of the courts.

What has judicial review got to do with this? Judicial review is the process of weighing laws and the application of laws against the constitution. It is not the manufacturing of rights that are not listed in the constitution and not recognized through the amendment process.

Prime example: When Dobbs happened, Roe was, in effect, overturned. It went to the states. That means you don't have equal protection under the law because you get different ranges of "rights" when it comes to abortion in different states. Guess What? That was already the case. Many legal scholars had written how many states had quietly killed Roe through the state legislative process.

And where is the effort to amend the constitution to allow abortion? Why have not all the crusaders banded together to start that process. I thought, for sure, they would be on it the next day. So far, I have seen nothing (and I am not looking).

Substantive Due Process is concept that is not set in stone and does not always come in the same way. In theory, the courts use unenumerated rights to support decisions that supposedly violated this principle. Such decisions are pretty much cloudy and messy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Have you ever heard of judicial tyranny?

Yes. Just look at the Trump court, which in addition to other atrocities, has given Trump iwide latitude to commit crimes while in office , gutted the votig rights act and striped women of the right to autonomy over their own bodies

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why do you have a problem with Article V, which is the only lawful way to add or expand federally protected rights?

Why do you have a problem understanding that repeatedly bleating that sentence does not change the fact that it's bullshit?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Have you ever heard of judicial tyranny?

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Why do you have a problem with Article V, which is the only lawful way to add or expand federally protected rights?

Why do you have a problem with the Tenth Amendment leaving to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, “. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”?

Whay do you have a problem understanding the fact that I have destroyed that argument numerous times, while providing documentation in te form of case law. Oh , never mind. You don;t believe in case law. That's your problem,

Again you keep regurgitation the same old crap, Never anything new, Never a coherent rebuttal

 

[johnwk]

Obergefell v. Hodges has fatally flawed faults demanding its reversal.

It was the opinion, nothing more, of a number of Justices (Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) in Obergefell v. Hodges, that Kentucky's marriage law violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

But the fact is, Obergefell v. Hodges has a number of glaring faults which renders the opinion as being fatally flawed and demanding its reversal.

Obergefell is based on "faulty" constitutional logic in several key areas:

• Lack of Constitutional Basis: the ruling is based upon irrelevant platitudes, historical notations and the majority’s personal predilections, rather than the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish specific and limited objectives, which the majority opinion falsely asserts have been violated, while the supposed right to same-sex marriage has no clear basis in the text of the Constitution or its legislative intent.

• Contradicts History and Tradition: The majority opinion ignores centuries of history that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while it conversely relies upon centuries of history to establish marriage is a fundamental right, thereby contradicting its own method used to arrive at its conclusion. Additionally, the majority opinion is in conflict with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which established a "history and tradition" test, stating that any right not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution must be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition to be protected under the Due Process Clause.

• Judicial Overreach and assuming a legislative function: The majority overstepped its judicial role and wrongfully assumed a legislative function by deciding and mandating a major social issue. In essence, the majority set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted its member’s personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and that requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.

• Disregards reserved powers of States and people therein. The majority’s opinion blatantly rendered meaningless and subverted the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein which, ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

What is the remedy? Our Supreme Court ought to rehear Obergefell and return the subject matter of marriage to the States where it properly belongs. Keep in mind that prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal in 36 states plus Washington D.C. It’s time for our Supreme Court to correct the subjugation of our system of law found in, and wrongfully imposed by Obergefell.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Absolutely know he concept. Just finished reading some of the federalist papers on the subject of the courts.

What has judicial review got to do with this? Judicial review is the process of weighing laws and the application of laws against the constitution. It is not the manufacturing of rights that are not listed in the constitution and not recognized through the amendment process.

Prime example: When Dobbs happened, Roe was, in effect, overturned. It went to the states. That means you don't have equal protection under the law because you get different ranges of "rights" when it comes to abortion in different states. Guess What? That was already the case. Many legal scholars had written how many states had quietly killed Roe through the state legislative process.

Judicial review has everything to do with identifying rights. When the court weighs laws and the application of laws against the constitution, they are determining what rights the government can limit and which must be recognized, and that includes unenumerated rights. That is what happened in Obergefell. They did not manufacture a law that says gasy must be allowed to marry. They weighed the restrictive laws that had been passed by the states, and determined that the state laws overstepped the bounds of the constitution.

When SCOTUS overturned Roe, the conservatives on the court shirked their duty to uphold the constitution through judicial review, and took away a right that had been settled law for decades.

So you read the Federalist papers? Did you read this one:

On May 28, 1788, Alexander Hamilton published Federalist 78—titled “The Judicial Department.” In this famous Federalist Paper essay, Hamilton offered, perhaps, the most powerful defense of judicial review in the American constitutional canon. On the one hand, Hamilton defined the judicial branch as the “least dangerous” branch of the new national government. On the other hand, he also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary and the power of judicial review. With judicial independence, the Constitution put barriers in place—like life tenure and salary protections—to ensure that the federal courts were independent from the control of the elected branches. And with judicial review, federal judges had the power to review the constitutionality of the laws and actions of the government—ensuring that they met the requirements of the new Constitution. Other than Marbury v. Madison (1803), Hamilton’s essay remains the most famous defense of judicial review in American history, and it even served as the basis for many of Chief Justice John Marshall’s arguments in Marbury itself.

I swear you people come up with some bizarre and bogus bullshit that amounts to little more than an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, except that you are not the authority that you purport to be, so it’s actually an appeal to ignorance fallacy Here is more:

Judicial review allows courts to recognize, define, and enforce rights, often by interpreting broad constitutional principles to apply to new situations, ensuring laws align with fundamental rights like free speech or due process, and striking down government actions that infringe upon them, effectively "creating" enforceable rights from general guarantees. While courts don't typically create new rights out of thin air, their power of interpretation (judicial review) is crucial for making existing constitutional rights real and applicable to citizens' lives.

How judicial review creates/enforces rights:

• Constitutional Interpretation: Courts interpret vague phrases (like "due process") to establish specific rights, like the right to privacy or marriage equality, as seen in many landmark cases.
• Protecting Minorities: It prevents temporary legislative majorities from infringing on minority rights, ensuring fundamental freedoms remain protected.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Obergefell v. Hodges has fatally flawed faults demanding its reversal.

It was the opinion, nothing more, of a number of Justices (Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) in Obergefell v. Hodges, that Kentucky's marriage law violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

But the fact is, Obergefell v. Hodges has a number of glaring faults which renders the opinion as being fatally flawed and demanding its reversal.

Obergefell is based on "faulty" constitutional logic in several key areas:

• Lack of Constitutional Basis: the ruling is based upon irrelevant platitudes, historical notations and the majority’s personal predilections, rather than the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish specific and limited objectives, which the majority opinion falsely asserts have been violated, while the supposed right to same-sex marriage has no clear basis in the text of the Constitution or its legislative intent.

• Contradicts History and Tradition: The majority opinion ignores centuries of history that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while it conversely relies upon centuries of history to establish marriage is a fundamental right, thereby contradicting its own method used to arrive at its conclusion. Additionally, the majority opinion is in conflict with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which established a "history and tradition" test, stating that any right not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution must be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition to be protected under the Due Process Clause.

• Judicial Overreach and assuming a legislative function: The majority overstepped its judicial role and wrongfully assumed a legislative function by deciding and mandating a major social issue. In essence, the majority set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted its member’s personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and that requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.

• Disregards reserved powers of States and people therein. The majority’s opinion blatantly rendered meaningless and subverted the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein which, ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

What is the remedy? Our Supreme Court ought to rehear Obergefell and return the subject matter of marriage to the States where it properly belongs. Keep in mind that prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal in 36 states plus Washington D.C. It’s time for our Supreme Court to correct the subjugation of our system of law found in, and wrongfully imposed by Obergefell.

You have already been smacked down on each and every one of those points yet you post it all again. Still waiting for you to come clean and admit that it is not about the constitution. It's about your pathological need to defend bigotry and exclusion at all costs .