SCOTUS decides for Constitutional right for gay marriage

[Bob Juch]

Link to come.

[SportsFan68]

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.

[smilergrogan]

Link to come.

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?

[Bob78164]

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

[Jeemie]

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

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.

I bet these tech developments helped make it only take half as long as you predicted.

[flockofseagulls104]

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.

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.

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.

[silverscreenselect]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bob Juch]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course. You know best. I guess the rest of us will just have to get used to it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Scalia is pretentious and egotistic.

LOL

[silverscreenselect]

Of course. You know best. I guess the rest of us will just have to get used to it.

You might do better than to look at Glenn Beck as your expert on constitutional law.

[Jeemie]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[flockofseagulls104]

Of course. You know best. I guess the rest of us will just have to get used to it.

You might do better than to look at Glenn Beck as your expert on constitutional law.

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.

I've read and I understand the dissents. Have you? Or are you on the BJ level?

[flockofseagulls104]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Bob Juch]

[Jeemie]

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.

I asked for your own words.

What new laws were created?

[Bob Juch]

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?

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.

[SpacemanSpiff]

The one true eye-roller I have from the past few days of The Supremes is some political pundits saying "there should be term limits on justices on the Supreme Court," implying that some have outlived their usefulness.

Given that we've had Democrats in control of the White House for 14 of the last 22 years, how would that have helped? I hardly think it would have made it more conservative.

[Bob78164]

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.

I asked for your own words.

What new laws were created?

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. --Bob

[Bob78164]

One other thing bears mentioning. Never forget how Justice Kennedy ended up on the Court. He got the seat Reagan tried to give to Robert Bork. God bless Teddy Kennedy for his leadership in defeating that nomination. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Fulton County, where I live, will start issuing gay marriage licenses at some sort of ceremony at 1:00 today. I expect that there will be a lot of applicants.

CORRECTION: They've already started issuing licenses. There will be a mass wedding ceremony at the courthouse at 1:00. DeKalb County, which is the second largest county (to Fulton) in terms of population, will be open tomorrow for issuing licenses as well.

[flockofseagulls104]

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.

I asked for your own words.

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]

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.

I asked for your own words.

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).

Overriding existing laws is not equivalent to creating new laws, Flock.

And it within the Supreme Court's purview to override existing laws- both federal and state- if it finds them unconstitutional.

[BackInTex]

God bless Teddy Kennedy for his leadership in defeating that nomination. --Bob

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.

[silverscreenselect]

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).

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. .