What's new

Supreme Court and Marriage equality/Obamacare ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scalia has lost it:
 
Unsurprisingly, the other four conservative justices on the court besides Kennedy disagreed, each writing his own dissent. Antonin Scalia's, per usual, is a classic. Legalizing same-sex weddings isn't just a threat to traditional marriage for Scalia. Nay, it is a sign of democracy's downfall. Just "ask a hippie."
 
Scalia opened his dissent by warning that legalizing marriage was not just a misreading of the law. He claims to not care one way or another about the concept of gay people getting married—though past opinions say otherwise. Rather, he felt compelled to write his own dissent in order to "call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy": "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." Also he goes out of his way to bash fellow justices as pretentious poets.

Here are some of the other best lines:
  • "The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis."
  • "When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases."
  • "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."
  • "This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."
  • "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."
  • "The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic."
  • "It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so."
  • "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."
  • "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
  • "Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall."
So long, Scalia's erstwhile idea of democracy; hello, civil rights.
 
 
AWESOME.......totally Awesome.
 
Nagasaki and Hiroshima......just got DROPPED  square on the head of the F'n GOP, just before the 16' election .
 
Tom (the HAMMER) Delay was on record as saying that  "There WILL Be CIVIL WAR " if this thing passes !
 
HEY ASSS-HOLE,................." Bring it On "  Jail Bird  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
For me in the strictest terms possible is their is no fundamental role in a free society that resects Individual Liberty and Responsibility for involvement in marriage or coercion via taxation to fund another's Healthcare.
 
Sometimes it takes a while. The US will do the right thing as soon as they have exhausted all other options.

Congrats.
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Nagasaki and Hiroshima......just got DROPPED  square on the head of the F'n GOP, just before the 16' election .
Yeah, keep dreaming.

Aside from a few bitter clingers, this won't even be talked about six weeks from now, let alone 15 months from now.

If anything, it helps make the next election about issues people really care about, and as I said earlier, takes away an opportunity for distraction. With luck, it will wash out a few of the more extremist candidates.

Same sex marriage was opposed by about 10%, and maybe had 15% of the public pushing for it. The rest of the country didn't take as hard of a stance either way.
 
Liberals only love the SCOTUS when it goes in their favor.
 
Now they are screaming victory...."ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND!"...."DEAL WITH IT"!, etc
 
Does the same apply to the other SCOTUS rulings?
 
Citizen United?
Bush v. Gore?
District of Columbia v. Heller?
etc.....
 
eolesen said:
Yeah, keep dreaming.

Aside from a few bitter clingers, this won't even be talked about six weeks from now, let alone 15 months from now.

If anything, it helps make the next election about issues people really care about, and as I said earlier, takes away an opportunity for distraction. With luck, it will wash out a few of the more extremist candidates.

Same sex marriage was opposed by about 10%, and maybe had 15% of the public pushing for it. The rest of the country didn't take as hard of a stance either way.
Walker and Cruz are talking about a constitutional amendment.  Given the crazy on the right, this dog has some legs.
 
Looks like Jindal wants to hop on the crazy train as well.
 
How badly do you have to hate someone to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent people from getting married?  That is just pitiful.
 
townpete said:
Liberals only love the SCOTUS when it goes in their favor.
 
Now they are screaming victory...."ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND!"...."DEAL WITH IT"!, etc
 
Does the same apply to the other SCOTUS rulings?
 
Citizen United?
Bush v. Gore?
District of Columbia v. Heller?
etc.....
They are the law of the land.  Has anyone made mention of a constitutional amendment reversing any of them?  Did anyone send a letter to the SCOTUS threatening them with civil protest if they ruled a certain way?  No.  They did not.  Don't have to agree with the ruling, but the hissy fit being thrown by the extremes on the right is just sad. 
 
Ms Tree said:
They are the law of the land.  Has anyone made mention of a constitutional amendment reversing any of them?  Did anyone send a letter to the SCOTUS threatening them with civil protest if they ruled a certain way?  No.  They did not.  Don't have to agree with the ruling, but the hissy fit being thrown by the extremes on the right is just sad. 
 
Wrong again furball.....that's where you're litter box is overflowing. Liberals are still having a hissy fit over CU, even tho its the law of the land....yada yada yada.
 
 
pfff
 
So all this was for the few 3%?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
Less than 3 percent of the U.S. population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday in the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation.
 
 
Rather the gay-mafia-agenda trying to impose their 3% lifestyle on the rest of the 97%....who could care less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top