A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
Well, hurry up, Bob! How am I supposed to learn about this historic decision that is being reported on every single news site on the internet if you don't provide me with a link?Bob Juch wrote:Link to come.
Well- the Internet was mostly for universities and social media at everyone's fingertips on their smart phones was a sci-fi dream in 1990.Bob78164 wrote:Here's the Court's opinion.
When I was starting law school in 1990, just after Hawaii issued the first decision in favor of same-sex marriage, I predicted that it would eventually be the law of the land but that it would take 50 years. I'm not sure I've ever been so happy to be wrong. --Bob
It doesn't matter to me if gay people choose to get married. What is frightening to me is the same thing that is scaring the crap out of Justice Scalia. We have just officially lost our republic. So go ahead and cheer the decision.SportsFan68 wrote:5-4. As predicted, Kennedy will write the majority opinion. Or has written, I dunno how that works.
This is a wonderful family friendly decision.
So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
Hate to burst your bubble Flock, but the right to Equal Protection under the law wasn't created by some subset of nine justices now or 240 years ago. It was created by Congress, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment. Laws against gay marriage are fundamentally no different than the anti-miscegenation laws that were struck down by the Supreme Court 50 years ago.flockofseagulls104 wrote:It doesn't matter to me if gay people choose to get married. What is frightening to me is the same thing that is scaring the crap out of Justice Scalia. We have just officially lost our republic. So go ahead and cheer the decision.SportsFan68 wrote:5-4. As predicted, Kennedy will write the majority opinion. Or has written, I dunno how that works.
This is a wonderful family friendly decision.
If you have any interest, read the dissents. I'm sure the news will talk about them and say how unusually harsh they are, after they praise the majority for their foresight and compassion.
We now officially have no Constitution. Let's see how that works.
So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
Scalia is pretentious and egotistic.flockofseagulls104 wrote:It doesn't matter to me if gay people choose to get married. What is frightening to me is the same thing that is scaring the crap out of Justice Scalia. We have just officially lost our republic. So go ahead and cheer the decision.SportsFan68 wrote:5-4. As predicted, Kennedy will write the majority opinion. Or has written, I dunno how that works.
This is a wonderful family friendly decision.
If you have any interest, read the dissents. I'm sure the news will talk about them and say how unusually harsh they are, after they praise the majority for their foresight and compassion.
We now officially have no Constitution. Let's see how that works.
So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
Of course. You know best. I guess the rest of us will just have to get used to it.silverscreenselect wrote:Hate to burst your bubble Flock, but the right to Equal Protection under the law wasn't created by some subset of nine justices now or 240 years ago. It was created by Congress, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment. Laws against gay marriage are fundamentally no different than the anti-miscegenation laws that were struck down by the Supreme Court 50 years ago.flockofseagulls104 wrote:It doesn't matter to me if gay people choose to get married. What is frightening to me is the same thing that is scaring the crap out of Justice Scalia. We have just officially lost our republic. So go ahead and cheer the decision.SportsFan68 wrote:5-4. As predicted, Kennedy will write the majority opinion. Or has written, I dunno how that works.
This is a wonderful family friendly decision.
If you have any interest, read the dissents. I'm sure the news will talk about them and say how unusually harsh they are, after they praise the majority for their foresight and compassion.
We now officially have no Constitution. Let's see how that works.
So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
Like Scalia, you apparently only like the parts of the Constitution that suit you. Apparently, you would have no problem had Scalia been able to convince Roberts and Kennedy to strike down Obamacare and that would be an even more blatant case of judicial law making than what you're upset about here.
LOLBob Juch wrote: Scalia is pretentious and egotistic.
You might do better than to look at Glenn Beck as your expert on constitutional law.flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Of course. You know best. I guess the rest of us will just have to get used to it.
How has this decision caused us to lose our Republic and kill the Constitution, Flock?flockofseagulls104 wrote:It doesn't matter to me if gay people choose to get married. What is frightening to me is the same thing that is scaring the crap out of Justice Scalia. We have just officially lost our republic. So go ahead and cheer the decision.SportsFan68 wrote:5-4. As predicted, Kennedy will write the majority opinion. Or has written, I dunno how that works.
This is a wonderful family friendly decision.
If you have any interest, read the dissents. I'm sure the news will talk about them and say how unusually harsh they are, after they praise the majority for their foresight and compassion.
We now officially have no Constitution. Let's see how that works.
So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
OK, maybe you got the point I made about using Rush Limbaugh as your version of a pointy stick in political debates. But you don't seem to get the concept. Substituting another name isn't going to make it valid.silverscreenselect wrote:You might do better than to look at Glenn Beck as your expert on constitutional law.flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Of course. You know best. I guess the rest of us will just have to get used to it.
Please read the dissents to the majority opinion.Jeemie wrote:How has this decision caused us to lose our Republic and kill the Constitution, Flock?flockofseagulls104 wrote:It doesn't matter to me if gay people choose to get married. What is frightening to me is the same thing that is scaring the crap out of Justice Scalia. We have just officially lost our republic. So go ahead and cheer the decision.SportsFan68 wrote:5-4. As predicted, Kennedy will write the majority opinion. Or has written, I dunno how that works.
This is a wonderful family friendly decision.
If you have any interest, read the dissents. I'm sure the news will talk about them and say how unusually harsh they are, after they praise the majority for their foresight and compassion.
We now officially have no Constitution. Let's see how that works.
So it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it
is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
In your own words, if that is OK with you, please?
I asked for your own words.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Please read the dissents to the majority opinion.
In a nutshell, 5 unelected justices just made a decision that creates new laws in the majority of the states that weren't there before. The Supreme Court does not have, never has had, and was not intended to have, the power to do that.
They now have that power.
Oh really? What are the section numbers of those new laws? What they did is to declare existing laws unconstitutional, as they did with Loving v. Virginia.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Please read the dissents to the majority opinion.Jeemie wrote:
How has this decision caused us to lose our Republic and kill the Constitution, Flock?
In your own words, if that is OK with you, please?
In a nutshell, 5 unelected justices just made a decision that creates new laws in the majority of the states that weren't there before. The Supreme Court does not have, never has had, and was not intended to have, the power to do that.
They now have that power.
It's a consequence of Scalia's vision of a static Constitution. Thomas's vision in this respect is even worse. Scalia's argument is that the Fourteenth Amendment can't possibly mean that same-sex couples have the right to marry because no one thought that when the Amendment was adopted. Therefore, according to Scalia, when the Court grants a constitutional right to marriage to same-sex couples, it is acting as a super legislature. --BobJeemie wrote:I asked for your own words.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Please read the dissents to the majority opinion.
In a nutshell, 5 unelected justices just made a decision that creates new laws in the majority of the states that weren't there before. The Supreme Court does not have, never has had, and was not intended to have, the power to do that.
They now have that power.
What new laws were created?
Several states have made same sex marriages legal, most, as of now, do not recognize same sex marriages. Some have passed laws defining marriage as between two people of opposite sex. This decision, without any basis in the Constitution, overrides existing laws which are in the State's jurisdiction. How can these laws be ruled unconstitutional when the Constitution does not give the Federal Government any say on what the definition of marriage is? (Other than an interpretation of the 14th amendment that could be used to mean anything).Jeemie wrote:I asked for your own words.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Please read the dissents to the majority opinion.
In a nutshell, 5 unelected justices just made a decision that creates new laws in the majority of the states that weren't there before. The Supreme Court does not have, never has had, and was not intended to have, the power to do that.
They now have that power.
What new laws were created?
Overriding existing laws is not equivalent to creating new laws, Flock.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Several states have made same sex marriages legal, most, as of now, do not recognize same sex marriages. Some have passed laws defining marriage as between two people of opposite sex. This decision, without any basis in the Constitution, overrides existing laws which are in the State's jurisdiction. How can these laws be ruled unconstitutional when the Constitution does not give the Federal Government any say on what the definition of marriage is? (Other than an interpretation of the 14th amendment that could be used to mean anything).Jeemie wrote:I asked for your own words.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Please read the dissents to the majority opinion.
In a nutshell, 5 unelected justices just made a decision that creates new laws in the majority of the states that weren't there before. The Supreme Court does not have, never has had, and was not intended to have, the power to do that.
They now have that power.
What new laws were created?
Ted Kennedy did the Devil's work on many occasion. He was a sick excuse for a man, human, or politician. If his last name had been any other he would have spent most of his adult life behind bars.Bob78164 wrote:God bless Teddy Kennedy for his leadership in defeating that nomination. --Bob
Since you've apparently been living in a vacuum for the last century or so, the Constitution through the 14th amendment says that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That means all the laws, including marriage laws, not just those laws that you think it should apply to. Our courts have spent decades determining whether thousands of laws on both serious and mundane subjects violate that equal protection clause. 2015 is a little late to start raising that argument. Perhaps you've heard of a case called Brown v. Board of Education. The Constitution doesn't talk about local public schools either, so I guess you think that case was wrongly decided as well. .flockofseagulls104 wrote: Several states have made same sex marriages legal, most, as of now, do not recognize same sex marriages. Some have passed laws defining marriage as between two people of opposite sex. This decision, without any basis in the Constitution, overrides existing laws which are in the State's jurisdiction. How can these laws be ruled unconstitutional when the Constitution does not give the Federal Government any say on what the definition of marriage is? (Other than an interpretation of the 14th amendment that could be used to mean anything).