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

[JakeStarkey]

Freewill skips back and forth between centuries.

The federal government "forced" CRs in the 1950s minimally and then strongly with LEO and military in the 1960s.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, we can bank on Scalia and Thomas being against anything gay-related. Most likely Roberts and Alito will as well. Sotamayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will most likely be for it. Kennedy is the x-factor.

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

The Fourteenth Amendment does impose certain limitations on the power that states have over their citizens. Whether such limitations apply in this particular instance, is the question that the court will be answering.

No. I'll put it in more frank terms because this stuff is taken VERY seriously. The SC will be deciding whether to overrule a state or not to. If they do that is rarely seen power by the Judicial Branch which usually tends to stay out of this type of things, because they are aware they are supposed to be the weakest of the 3 branches. When things are this close they tend to balk as they "should". However, if they overule the states, then I'm on board with serious judicial reform in this country no matter my stance on this issue for or against.

There are numerous examples of the Supreme Court overruling state and local laws including the decision which made corporations "people" (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the reason that police read suspects their rights (Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as well as the various reasons that the state and local police must respect those rights, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc.

It's rare, which is what I said. They don't like to do it.

Not at all rare. Happens all the time.

 

[Judicial review]

This is why I think he wont do anything and not make it national. It's not about the issue. It's about the judicial branch having to much power and interfearing by overuling state issues. We know they will do it to the federal, because that is the judical branches job to hold the 3 branches in check with the constitution. Doing it to the states is a another whole ball game and a real show of power. I say they balk. they should. The judicial branch meaning the courts have become way too powerful. Judicial reform is needed.

The Fourteenth Amendment does impose certain limitations on the power that states have over their citizens. Whether such limitations apply in this particular instance, is the question that the court will be answering.

No. I'll put it in more frank terms because this stuff is taken VERY seriously. The SC will be deciding whether to overrule a state or not to. If they do that is rarely seen power by the Judicial Branch which usually tends to stay out of this type of things, because they are aware they are supposed to be the weakest of the 3 branches. When things are this close they tend to balk as they "should". However, if they overule the states, then I'm on board with serious judicial reform in this country no matter my stance on this issue for or against.

There are numerous examples of the Supreme Court overruling state and local laws including the decision which made corporations "people" (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the reason that police read suspects their rights (Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as well as the various reasons that the state and local police must respect those rights, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc.

It's rare, which is what I said. They don't like to do it.

Not at all rare. Happens all the time.

Not on this scale. This would be a huge show of power against the states. It's rare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JR, nobody how many times you say you are right does not make it so.

 

[Judicial review]

JR, nobody how many times you say you are right does not make it so.

Some people need things repeated. It's annoying, but necessary.

 

[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.

 

[Redfish]

A state-wide vote would mobilize the Millennials into a frenzy to put down the political power of the far right social cons once and for all.

Ok, then lets do it. Let each state vote on a prop 8 type referendum. Let the will of the people control. OK?

Of course it would crush your side, and so will the SCOTUS ruling when it is announced in June. No reason for a state by state vote because it is a constitutional issue, created by your side.

Geez, give it a rest. There is no constitutional issue here. But if you think there is, please quote the language from the constitution where gay marriage is mentioned.

I know that you fear a vote of the people, because you know that your side would lose as it did twice in the very blue state of CA.

You sound silly, but it is your right to be a fool.

Yes, it is a constitutional issue, regardless of what you feel. SCOTUS and the courts have accepted it as such. Amazing, huh, they feel no need to consult with such scholars like you?

you keep saying that, but have yet to quote the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind for that matter.

gay marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue, and society as a whole should decide it. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Checks and balances say those 9 old people have the responsibility to stand up for the rights of the people......even if they are in a minority

 

[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.

Checks and balances say those 9 old people have the responsibility to stand up for the rights of the people......even if they are in a minority

the role of SCOTUS is to decide issues that cannot be decided by the lower courts. SCOTUS is the final appeal for all legal matters. It is not their role to inject their personal cultural beliefs into any case. They are not there to "stand up for the rights of the people" That is one of your more stupid statements. They are there to interpret lower court rulings based on the words of the constitution and constitutional precedents.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Checks and balances say those 9 old people have the responsibility to stand up for the rights of the people......even if they are in a minority

the role of SCOTUS is to decide issues that cannot be decided by the lower courts. SCOTUS is the final appeal for all legal matters. It is not their role to inject their personal cultural beliefs into any case. They are not there to "stand up for the rights of the people" That is one of your more stupid statements. They are there to interpret lower court rulings based on the words of the constitution and constitutional precedents.

It seems like that is what they are doing in trying to resolve a dozen lower court decisions

Yes, they are there to stand up for the rights of the little man against the big bad gubmint.......isn't that what you guys are always bitching about?

 

[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.

Checks and balances say those 9 old people have the responsibility to stand up for the rights of the people......even if they are in a minority

the role of SCOTUS is to decide issues that cannot be decided by the lower courts. SCOTUS is the final appeal for all legal matters. It is not their role to inject their personal cultural beliefs into any case. They are not there to "stand up for the rights of the people" That is one of your more stupid statements. They are there to interpret lower court rulings based on the words of the constitution and constitutional precedents.

It seems like that is what they are doing in trying to resolve a dozen lower court decisions

Yes, they are there to stand up for the rights of the little man against the big bad gubmint.......isn't that what you guys are always bitching about?

your knowledge of our government is very limited. Did you fail 9th grade civics class?

the SC is not there to protect anyone from anyone else. The SC exists to decide cases that have been appealed from the lower courts. The SC is not the morals police?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A state-wide vote would mobilize the Millennials into a frenzy to put down the political power of the far right social cons once and for all.

Ok, then lets do it. Let each state vote on a prop 8 type referendum. Let the will of the people control. OK?

Of course it would crush your side, and so will the SCOTUS ruling when it is announced in June. No reason for a state by state vote because it is a constitutional issue, created by your side.

Geez, give it a rest. There is no constitutional issue here. But if you think there is, please quote the language from the constitution where gay marriage is mentioned.

I know that you fear a vote of the people, because you know that your side would lose as it did twice in the very blue state of CA.

You sound silly, but it is your right to be a fool.

Yes, it is a constitutional issue, regardless of what you feel. SCOTUS and the courts have accepted it as such. Amazing, huh, they feel no need to consult with such scholars like you?

you keep saying that, but have yet to quote the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind for that matter.

gay marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue, and society as a whole should decide it. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

Incorrect.

Whether same-sex couples may access marriage law or not is very much a Constitutional issue. Marriage is contract law, no different than any other law enacted by a state or jurisdiction.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage contract law, where the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from seeking to deny gay Americans access to that law; the people do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, as one's civil rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

 

[Bfgrn]

The center is the majority of Americans who support marriage equality.

The haters and losers are out of the far right.

SCOTUS will not go back to before marriage equality

The center is now more right leaning on most issues. Whether they are or not on this doesn't matter. This issue is a 50/50 split with science on the side of the right, which may sway this in their favor and be the deciding factor. That's why I believe the justices age and the generations they grew up in and the fact they sided with Obama on the ACA being a tax, makes me believe they want to seem fair and a balanced power and un political. Remember this isn't science this is people playing politics and requesting the same rights and other and taking it to a whole new level.

I could without question see them being bold and overrule the states.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Redfish]

Ok, then lets do it. Let each state vote on a prop 8 type referendum. Let the will of the people control. OK?

Of course it would crush your side, and so will the SCOTUS ruling when it is announced in June. No reason for a state by state vote because it is a constitutional issue, created by your side.

Geez, give it a rest. There is no constitutional issue here. But if you think there is, please quote the language from the constitution where gay marriage is mentioned.

I know that you fear a vote of the people, because you know that your side would lose as it did twice in the very blue state of CA.

You sound silly, but it is your right to be a fool.

Yes, it is a constitutional issue, regardless of what you feel. SCOTUS and the courts have accepted it as such. Amazing, huh, they feel no need to consult with such scholars like you?

you keep saying that, but have yet to quote the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind for that matter.

gay marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue, and society as a whole should decide it. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

Incorrect.

Whether same-sex couples may access marriage law or not is very much a Constitutional issue. Marriage is contract law, no different than any other law enacted by a state or jurisdiction.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage contract law, where the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from seeking to deny gay Americans access to that law; the people do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, as one's civil rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Geez, you libs are thick headed. the civil rights that we enjoy were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote.

A majority of our citizens decided what rights should apply to all american citizens. Our government representatives are elected by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote.

To say that the majority does not decide rights is the height of ignorance.

There is no specific law or statute anywhere in our national legal system that specifically addressed gay marriage. The 14th amendment does not mention gay marriage. Equal access to the law does not mean gays can call their unions a marriage.

If you want this settled then put it to a vote in every state--------or process a constitutional amendment specifically addressing gay marriage and see if 38 states will ratify it.

 

[Redfish]

The center is the majority of Americans who support marriage equality.

The haters and losers are out of the far right.

SCOTUS will not go back to before marriage equality

The center is now more right leaning on most issues. Whether they are or not on this doesn't matter. This issue is a 50/50 split with science on the side of the right, which may sway this in their favor and be the deciding factor. That's why I believe the justices age and the generations they grew up in and the fact they sided with Obama on the ACA being a tax, makes me believe they want to seem fair and a balanced power and un political. Remember this isn't science this is people playing politics and requesting the same rights and other and taking it to a whole new level.

I could without question see them being bold and overrule the states.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

if that poll is accurate then why do you on the left object to a national referendum or a constitutional amendment? Why do you object to letting the people speak? Could it be because you know that that poll is bullshit?

 

[Bfgrn]

Of course it would crush your side, and so will the SCOTUS ruling when it is announced in June. No reason for a state by state vote because it is a constitutional issue, created by your side.

Geez, give it a rest. There is no constitutional issue here. But if you think there is, please quote the language from the constitution where gay marriage is mentioned.

I know that you fear a vote of the people, because you know that your side would lose as it did twice in the very blue state of CA.

You sound silly, but it is your right to be a fool.

Yes, it is a constitutional issue, regardless of what you feel. SCOTUS and the courts have accepted it as such. Amazing, huh, they feel no need to consult with such scholars like you?

you keep saying that, but have yet to quote the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind for that matter.

gay marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue, and society as a whole should decide it. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

Incorrect.

Whether same-sex couples may access marriage law or not is very much a Constitutional issue. Marriage is contract law, no different than any other law enacted by a state or jurisdiction.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage contract law, where the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from seeking to deny gay Americans access to that law; the people do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, as one's civil rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Geez, you libs are thick headed. the civil rights that we enjoy were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote.

A majority of our citizens decided what rights should apply to all american citizens. Our government representatives are elected by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote.

To say that the majority does not decide rights is the height of ignorance.

There is no specific law or statute anywhere in our national legal system that specifically addressed gay marriage. The 14th amendment does not mention gay marriage. Equal access to the law does not mean gays can call their unions a marriage.

If you want this settled then put it to a vote in every state--------or process a constitutional amendment specifically addressing gay marriage and see if 38 states will ratify it.

WOW, a right winger saying America is a "democracy"... and not just a run of the mill democracy, a "direct democracy"...

 

[Redfish]

Geez, give it a rest. There is no constitutional issue here. But if you think there is, please quote the language from the constitution where gay marriage is mentioned.

I know that you fear a vote of the people, because you know that your side would lose as it did twice in the very blue state of CA.

You sound silly, but it is your right to be a fool.

Yes, it is a constitutional issue, regardless of what you feel. SCOTUS and the courts have accepted it as such. Amazing, huh, they feel no need to consult with such scholars like you?

you keep saying that, but have yet to quote the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind for that matter.

gay marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue, and society as a whole should decide it. I am willing to accept the will of the people, are you?

Incorrect.

Whether same-sex couples may access marriage law or not is very much a Constitutional issue. Marriage is contract law, no different than any other law enacted by a state or jurisdiction.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage contract law, where the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from seeking to deny gay Americans access to that law; the people do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, as one's civil rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Geez, you libs are thick headed. the civil rights that we enjoy were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote.

A majority of our citizens decided what rights should apply to all american citizens. Our government representatives are elected by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote.

To say that the majority does not decide rights is the height of ignorance.

There is no specific law or statute anywhere in our national legal system that specifically addressed gay marriage. The 14th amendment does not mention gay marriage. Equal access to the law does not mean gays can call their unions a marriage.

If you want this settled then put it to a vote in every state--------or process a constitutional amendment specifically addressing gay marriage and see if 38 states will ratify it.

WOW, a right winger saying America is a "democracy"... and not just a run of the mill democracy, a "direct democracy"...

not what I said at all, but your lack of reading comprehension is acknowledged.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Checks and balances say those 9 old people have the responsibility to stand up for the rights of the people......even if they are in a minority

the role of SCOTUS is to decide issues that cannot be decided by the lower courts. SCOTUS is the final appeal for all legal matters. It is not their role to inject their personal cultural beliefs into any case. They are not there to "stand up for the rights of the people" That is one of your more stupid statements. They are there to interpret lower court rulings based on the words of the constitution and constitutional precedents.

It seems like that is what they are doing in trying to resolve a dozen lower court decisions

Yes, they are there to stand up for the rights of the little man against the big bad gubmint.......isn't that what you guys are always bitching about?

your knowledge of our government is very limited. Did you fail 9th grade civics class?

the SC is not there to protect anyone from anyone else. The SC exists to decide cases that have been appealed from the lower courts. The SC is not the morals police?

You seem to have missed out on 200 years of Supreme Court decisions

In cases related to morals and individual rights.........yes they are the morals police

 

[rightwinger]

The center is the majority of Americans who support marriage equality.

The haters and losers are out of the far right.

SCOTUS will not go back to before marriage equality

The center is now more right leaning on most issues. Whether they are or not on this doesn't matter. This issue is a 50/50 split with science on the side of the right, which may sway this in their favor and be the deciding factor. That's why I believe the justices age and the generations they grew up in and the fact they sided with Obama on the ACA being a tax, makes me believe they want to seem fair and a balanced power and un political. Remember this isn't science this is people playing politics and requesting the same rights and other and taking it to a whole new level.

I could without question see them being bold and overrule the states.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

if that poll is accurate then why do you on the left object to a national referendum or a constitutional amendment? Why do you object to letting the people speak? Could it be because you know that that poll is bullshit?

Simply because the majority should not be able to vote on what rights the minority should be allowed

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[JakeStarkey]

JR, nobody how many times you say you are right does not make it so.

Some people need things repeated. It's annoying, but necessary.

You sound like a mindlessly chattering chipmunk. You are wrong, and it is annoying.