The Liberal Supreme Court

1) Found for ACA (twice -including yesterday)
2) Found that disparate impact analysis is indicative of racism (yesterday)
3) Laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional (today)
«1345678

Replies

  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    At least as liberal as the Burger court, approaching Warren Court Status. Seriously, its horrible.

    There was no way Roberts was going to kill the exchange, but his "opinion" does so much violence to the English language that its hard to swallow.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    The disparate impact decision is crazy. Now we have to consider race in every decision we make.

    Far cry from "content of character" ain't it?
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,331 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    its hard to swallow.

    You sir are one funny ****.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,331 Senior Member
    Does this mean the rainbow flag should now be banned too? :confused:
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    sherb wrote: »
    At least as liberal as the Burger court, approaching Warren Court Status. Seriously, its horrible.

    There was no way Roberts was going to kill the exchange, but his "opinion" does so much violence to the English language that its hard to swallow.

    However, I will give the chief his due. Robert's dissent in Hodges (the gay marriage case) actually sounds like it was written by a judge and not a social worker. His closing salvo:

    If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate
    the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not
    celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
  • Auntie EmAuntie Em Senior Member Posts: 159 Senior Member
    I've never been accused of being any thing other than a PITA ... but... I'm thrilled this is settled. Now, lets get on to jobs for all who need, regardless of color, or sexual proclivity. It's about time. IMHO. Others thoughts may vary.
    Lord ... give me patience, and give it to me RIGHT NOW!!!!!
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    Where in the constitution does it say rights are only conferred on White Heterosexuals?

    kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.png
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    Auntie Em wrote: »
    I've never been accused of being any thing other than a PITA ... but... I'm thrilled this is settled. Now, lets get on to jobs for all who need, regardless of color, or sexual proclivity. It's about time. IMHO. Others thoughts may vary.
    We already have that. Now, I can't have a policy in place for employing people where I turn down applicants who can't pass a drug test, if it disproportionately affects blacks.

    In 1968 the Supreme Court said, "You can't consider race!"

    In 2015, the Supreme Court says, "You must consider race!"

    Buttery ****.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    9479284ed5b33009e3828cfd8fcc4738.jpg

    First of all, are you saying that black people use more drugs than white people? We have had drug testing for 30 years and yet this has not come up, why would it now?

    Finally, this was about the housing act.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    9479284ed5b33009e3828cfd8fcc4738.jpg

    First of all, are you saying that black people use more drugs than white people? We have had drug testing for 30 years and yet this has not come up, why would it now?

    Finally, this was about the housing act.
    I understand that. How else would disparate impact be manifest? That was just an example I read.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,586 Senior Member
    And I'm full frothy mode right now and was reading The National Review. ;)
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Where in the constitution does it say rights are only conferred on White Heterosexuals?

    Nowhere. The subject of sexuality, hetero or otherwise, is not found in the constitution. Which is one of the many reasons that this is not a constitutional issue.

    Look, you're a lib. You're not a lawyer. All you care about is the result. I don't care about the result. I'm happy for the plaintiffs. I care about the legal rationale undergirding this case, and simply put, there is zero legal basis for this opinion. Period. Gay marriage was going to happen regardless of what the supreme court did. But when the Court interjected themselves into this debate, they removed that power from the voters. Is this country with 320 million people ruled by 5 lawyers?

    This is so disheartening to me. King v. Burwell was just wrong as a matter of statutory interpretation. I can live with that. I knew Kennedy would give us gay marriage by judicial fiat, but I had at least hoped there would be some discernible legal rationale. But this opinion is such a lawless piece of leftist claptrap, I don't honestly know where this leaves us as a country. Very, very discouraging.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Where in the constitution does it say rights are only conferred on White Heterosexuals?

    kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.png

    Prior to this morning, many states forbid white heterosexuals from marrying same sex partners.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Buffco wrote: »
    The disparate impact decision is crazy. Now we have to consider race in every decision we make.

    Far cry from "content of character" ain't it?

    I'm actually surprised by this. Disparate impact was all the rage in the 70's, but the court had been moving away from the concept. . .until now.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Where in the constitution does it say rights are only conferred on White Heterosexuals?

    kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.png

    This is beautiful language. I commend Justice Kennedy for drafting it. As a statement of a country's ideals and a civilization's aspirations, its perfect. WHERE THE HELL IS THE LAW IN IT?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Apparently the Equal Protection Clause, or maybe the Due Process Clause, or maybe both imply a constitutional right to "dignity." By not recognizing gay marriage, states are impinging on a homosexual's dignity.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    sherb wrote: »
    Look, you're a lib. You're not a lawyer. All you care about is the result. I don't care about the result. I'm happy for the plaintiffs. I care about the legal rationale undergirding this case, and simply put, there is zero legal basis for this opinion.

    Post of the month.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Steven wrote: »
    Apparently the Equal Protection Clause, or maybe the Due Process Clause, or maybe both imply a constitutional right to "dignity." By not recognizing gay marriage, states are impinging on a homosexual's dignity.

    You guys want to read a good opinion on this issue? An opinion that cites the law? An opinion that actually takes into account what a judge's role is? Then read the opinion that this case overturned.

    http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/Sixth%20Circuit%20opinion.pdf

    If a federal court denies the people suffrage over an issue long thought to be within their power, they deserve an explanation. We, for our part, cannot find one,
    as several other judges have concluded as well.


    This.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    This is beautiful language. I commend Justice Kennedy for drafting it. As a statement of a country's ideals and a civilization's aspirations, its perfect. WHERE THE HELL IS THE LAW IN IT?

    When he sites the equal protection provided by it. Just because you disagree does not make it wrong.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Nowhere. The subject of sexuality, hetero or otherwise, is not found in the constitution. Which is one of the many reasons that this is not a constitutional issue.

    Right so how is it you decide that equal protection should not be provided based upon it.

    I think you are equally concerned with the result.

    I have stated on many occasions that my interpretation of the constitution is that it is there to protect everybody gay or straight from the tyranny of the majority and to provide equal protection under the law. Kennedy's opinion is consistent with that interpretation. Apparently you believe that people under our government do not have the right to be gay. But if that is not stated in the constitution as you already suggest perhaps you can tell me where I can find that in the constitution.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    I understand that. How else would disparate impact be manifest? That was just an example I read.

    You should have figured out by now that reading something in the National Review does not make it factually based or even within reason.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Apparently the Equal Protection Clause, or maybe the Due Process Clause, or maybe both imply a constitutional right to "dignity." By not recognizing gay marriage, states are impinging on a homosexual's dignity.

    Yes and you are relegating them to second class citizen status.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    When he sites the equal protection provided by it. Just because you disagree does not make it wrong.

    and just because you agree with the result doesn't make it right.

    He doesn't say "equal protection." He says "Equal dignity." Equal protection is a legal term of art. it has a specific meaning tied both to precedent and the text of the 14th Amendment. Kennedy's free-standing "liberty and dignity" jurisprudence, I'm sorry to say, does not. Its made up. Its nothing but his opinion.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Prior to this morning, many states forbid white heterosexuals from marrying same sex partners.

    So how many straight white men do you think want to marry same sex partners. This is the lamest argument ever. It is an argument to treat gays as unequal.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    and just because you agree with the result doesn't make it right.

    He doesn't say "equal protection." He says "Equal dignity." Equal protection is a legal term of art. it has a specific meaning tied both to precedent and the text of the 14th Amendment. Kennedy's free-standing "liberty and dignity" jurisprudence, I'm sorry to say, does not. Its made up. Its nothing but his opinion.

    Picking nits. If straight people have the right to marry who they love, under equal protection under the law so do gay people.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    and just because you agree with the result doesn't make it right.

    Actually the way the constitution works, yes it does.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    Honest question, Sherb:

    When you ask "where is the law," isn't the point of this ruling to negate state's laws to ban gay marriage? Isn't that something the court normally decides?

    Again, not trying to trick or argue. Just curious.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Actually the way the constitution works, yes it does.

    You don't have a **** clue how the constitution works. And guess what? You're in August company. You and Justice Kennedy should do lunch.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,381 Senior Member
    I am sure he is duly impressed with your argument.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Picking nits. If straight people have the right to marry who they love, under equal protection under the law so do gay people.

    This is Pio's argument. It barely warrants a response. But here's one anyway.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/26/a-great-decision-on-same-sex-marriage-but-based-on-dubious-reasoning/

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.