Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[martybegan]

Your retorts meaningless, Marty and Redfish, as are your arguments.

You argue to argue because you have nothing else with which to work.

Those with greater and far more understanding about the Constitution, American law, the American narrative than have explained all this to you, and with immoral stubbornness bordering on pathology, you continue to argue.

Now we are merely toying with you.

otherwise know as "blah blah blah I have nothing blah blah blah"

Go **** a goat Farkey.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

An inherent right maybe, but one which is not enshrined in the constitution, only in the minds of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

 

[JoeNormal]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

No kidding. WTF?

Some people conflate their authoritarian religious views as right leaning views, when in fact they are just authoritarian. For example, the religious nuts that want to force the world to stop all gay marriages.. yeah those guys, think they are right leaning. But really they are just jerks that happen to have congregated on the right. One day the conservatives will wake up to this and return the republican party to a conservative party that fights for liberty for all.

Another group of nuts on the right thought the court should rule that a fine if you don't buy health insurance is not a tax and thus is unconstitutional. Yeah even the right has people that are that dumb.

If the republicans ever return to what the party was when Eisenhower was in office, I might actually consider voting for them again. The closest I've seen to that was maybe Jon Huntsman.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty and Redfish, having had their arguments blown out of the water, are merely being driven in circles by the hounds of pursuit.

I knew old men in East Texas who used to use dogs to hunt deer, guided by and guiding by the sound of the chase and the sound of horns.

The pursued are beginning to falter.

 

[martybegan]

Marty and Redfish, having had their arguments blown out of the water, are merely being driven in circles by the hounds of pursuit.

I knew old men in East Texas who used to use dogs to hunt deer, guided by and guiding by the sound of the chase and the sound of horns.

The pursued are beginning to falter.

More non content posting from the poster with the no content mind.

 

[thanatos144]

For the sake of posterity, I think Roberts will also side with the left

So do I. Roberts has three abiding core values: conservatism, legacy and the integrity of the courts.

On the first count, Roberts would side with the conservatives. The latter two would compel him to side with the left and Kennedy.

I think if Roberts vote could change the outcome, he'd side with the conservatives. But it seems increasingly unlikely that his vote will change anything. Kennedy seems poised to side with the left on this issue and preserve gay marriage. So Roberts is left with his own personal legacy and the intergrity of the courts.

No one save Scalia wants to be this generations Leon Bazile;

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile ruling against Mildred and Richard Loving

With 50 years of separation, Leon sounds ignorant as ****. And that ruling against the Lovings defines his legacy. I think Roberts recognizes the issue of gay marriage will be similarly important in the long term. With opposition to gay marriage look back upon and scorned as useless ignorance. I don't think he wants to be on the wrong side of this issue.

As for the integrity of the court, most of your major civil rights legislation was historically done as close to unanimous as possible. Both Brown v. The Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia ruling were unanimous. A deeply divided court makes the USSC look political. A more unanimous verdict, impartial and more constitutional. I see this ruling as being in the same ball park in terms of long term significance. I suspect this may push Roberts toward concurring sheerly for the sake of consensus within the courts.

I think its likely that we'll get a 6 to 3 ruling out of the court in favor of gay marriage. I'd say even 7-2 was possible....though quite unlikely. I don't see Scalia or Thomas siding with gay marriage regardless.

And as an aside, I disagree with Roberts on many issues. But I think he's a fine Chief Justice. Thoroughly qualified, thoughtful, and principled. I just disagree on where he's placed his principles.

The only judge who is an outright *** hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Section 1. 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.

There is equal protection since the law is applied equaly regardless of age sex ectect

 

[paperview]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

An inherent right maybe, but one which is not enshrined in the constitution, only in the minds of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Marriage is a Fundamental Right -- Constitutional case law. Deal with it.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

"It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

 

[RKMBrown]

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

The Father of our Constitution was a slaveholder, as were many other Founders who signed it.

You're right. The majority of Americans decided that minorities should not have equal treatment.

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

Not in America. Not necessarily.

There are many 'rights' that the courts have recognized that the 'majority' opposed. A prime example were the laws against mixed race marriage- the Supreme Court found that violated the 14th Amendment- even though the laws were passed by majority vote, and even though the majority of Americans were against mixed race marriages for another 30 years.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Faced with the positive failure of ratification of the 14th Amendment, both Houses of Congress passed over the veto of the President three Acts known as Reconstruction Acts, between the dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867, especially the third of said Acts, 15 Stat. p. 14 etc., designed illegally to remove with "Military force" the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of the 10 Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas."

In short, they went down to the southern states to kill anyone in any legislatures who disagreed with them.

Then did a recount.

 

[bodecea]

The SCOTUS voted in favor of gay rights, because gay rights are supported by the constitution.

Gay rights are a social issue; if you are trying to legislate morality, e.g. social issues, the SCOTUS should do it's job and vote in favor of personal liberties and against the government injecting itself into your bedrooms.

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can't but I will ask any way. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

 

[bodecea]

we won both houses of congress and a majority of governors and state houses last year. Maybe the tide is turning.

Indeed, the GOP made sure the TP idiots can't threaten to sink the ship of state this time around.

Marriage equality is an American issue, not a party issue.

yes it is, and as such it should be decided by the people or their representatives in congress, not 9 old people in black robes.

Maybe we should have a vote of the people as to whether we take the billions of the 1% and distribute it evenly among everyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

originally, yes. But that has been changed by constitutional amendments and laws-------passed by a majority of votes.

I don't know why you libs cannot understand that the rights we enjoy and minorities enjoy were passed by a majority vote....................majorities do decide what rights the members of the society are entitled to.

Not in America. Not necessarily.

There are many 'rights' that the courts have recognized that the 'majority' opposed. A prime example were the laws against mixed race marriage- the Supreme Court found that violated the 14th Amendment- even though the laws were passed by majority vote, and even though the majority of Americans were against mixed race marriages for another 30 years.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not in America. Not necessarily.

There are many 'rights' that the courts have recognized that the 'majority' opposed. A prime example were the laws against mixed race marriage- the Supreme Court found that violated the 14th Amendment- even though the laws were passed by majority vote, and even though the majority of Americans were against mixed race marriages for another 30 years.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It's the law. I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that it was forced on the south by guns, vs. being voted on by free men.

 

[Redfish]

we won both houses of congress and a majority of governors and state houses last year. Maybe the tide is turning.

Indeed, the GOP made sure the TP idiots can't threaten to sink the ship of state this time around.

Marriage equality is an American issue, not a party issue.

yes it is, and as such it should be decided by the people or their representatives in congress, not 9 old people in black robes.

Maybe we should have a vote of the people as to whether we take the billions of the 1% and distribute it evenly among everyone else.

put you envy and jealousy to a vote. While you are at it why not take all of the money that corporations have and split it evenly over all citizens?

Punish success and reward failure---------------------the mantra of dems and libs.

 

[rightwinger]

Not in America. Not necessarily.

There are many 'rights' that the courts have recognized that the 'majority' opposed. A prime example were the laws against mixed race marriage- the Supreme Court found that violated the 14th Amendment- even though the laws were passed by majority vote, and even though the majority of Americans were against mixed race marriages for another 30 years.

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It is surprising that the 14th amendment would not have given women the vote

 

[Redfish]

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It is surprising that the 14th amendment would not have given women the vote

good question, it gave gays the right to marry (in your mind) but did not give women the right to vote. How do you explain that? the 14th discriminates against women but not gays.

its amazing how you libs can screw up your own arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

Really? what statute makes it a "fundamental" right? Was marriage a fundamental right before the constitution? Where is gay marriage ever mentioned in any of our statutes or legal documents

You can stomp your feet and whine about how marriage is not a 'fundamental right' but it has been recognized as a fundamental right and legally is a fundamental right.

You may disagree with the Supreme Court- but your disagreement is nothing more than your personal opinion with absolutely no legal value.

What the Supreme Court has repeatedly said over decades:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."



Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

 

[RKMBrown]

how did the 14th amendment become law? Was it possibly by majority vote? your ignorance is amazing.

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It is surprising that the 14th amendment would not have given women the vote

It is surprising to me that the 14th amendment took away the natural rights of the citizens to life, liberty, and property.

 

[Redfish]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.