The Liberal Supreme Court

245678

Replies

  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    seppala wrote: »
    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?


    Of course. Normally, however, they rely on either the text of the constitution or on their own precedents, or on longstanding cultural or historical practice. None of those are present here. When I ask "where is the law?" I'm asking for the legal basis for this opinion. And even a non-lawyer can clearly see in Kennedy's opinion a desire to write for posterity and play to the crowd. That's fine. Its disappointing, but the result was a foregone conclusion anyway. Its just not the way cases are supposed to be decided. But if this opinion had been written in the usual way (see e.g. the opinion of the 6th circuit), then the result would have been different, and the result was never going to be anything but what it was.
  • seppalaseppala Senior Member Posts: 1,916 Senior Member
    I dig. Thanks.
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    3 strikes and you're out. Next batter.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    It’s hard to argue that the right to same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in this way, given that it did not exist in any state until 2003.

    The flaw here is not that the fundamental right is same-sex marriage, the fundamental right is the right to marry. Just as inter-racial marriage was not the right that was being fought for, it was for the right of inter-racial couples to marry.
    (e.g. – in the case laws criminalizing intimate homosexual relations)

    And those laws were deemed unconstitutional.
    '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
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 4,906 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?

    Exactly. I don't see how you get this out of the 14th or anywhere? Agree with your other posts it was going to happen, but nowhere in the Constitution is there any grounds for this. I don't care about the decision at all, what I care about is that these activists judges just $hit all over the Constitution. What it actually says no longer matters one bit. This is what makes this so upsetting.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    Well most of those judges were nominated by Republicans, so there you go.
    '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
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 4,906 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »


    Thanks Sherb. Good piece on the matter.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The flaw here is not that the fundamental right is same-sex marriage, the fundamental right is the right to marry. Just as inter-racial marriage was not the right that was being fought for, it was for the right of inter-racial couples to marry.


    I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
    And those laws were deemed unconstitutional.

    lol. love the passive voice here. Deemed unconstitutional by whom? Oh, that's right. . . Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, using the same "liberty and dignity" jurisprudential approach found in Hodges. I would say Lawrence is his second-worst effort at an opinion (and there are many contenders). But for sheer judicial hubris, nothing tops today. At least in Lawrence v. Texas Kennedy could say that Bowers v. Hardwick was wrongly decided. Here, there's nothing. Even Roe v. Wade isn't this far removed from the text of the constitution. Roe, whatever its flaws, did not include as its guiding principle a lack of clarity.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Be not deceived. A court which so willingly departs from the text of the Constitution, from long-established precedent, from history and tradition, a court unmoored from its traditional role as a passive interpreter of the laws, will not hesitate to invalidate legislation which you support. Kennedy and the other members of the court might be on the side of angels now, but if their only guide is their own conscience, there is no limit to what they would consider outside the bounds of the democratic process.

    Just ask Dred Scott.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,235 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Be not deceived. A court which so willingly departs from the text of the Constitution, from long-established precedent, from history and tradition, a court unmoored from its traditional role as a passive interpreter of the laws, will not hesitate to invalidate legislation which you support. Kennedy and the other members of the court might be on the side of angels now, but if their only guide is their own conscience, there is no limit to what they would consider outside the bounds of the democratic process.

    Just ask Dred Scott.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/

    Re this and your "it's just his opinion" post, how does this differ from when Alito and Thomas ignore precedent and vote their political beliefs - aside from the fact that yours and theirs have some degree of overlap?
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    George K wrote: »
    Re this and your "it's just his opinion" post, how does this differ from when Alito and Thomas ignore precedent and vote their political beliefs - aside from the fact that yours and theirs have some degree of overlap?


    It doesn't. I'm not defending conservatives by excoriating Kennedy. Give me an example and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. But I'm really talking about the Court as an institution. Right now Kennedy constitutes a swing vote, and for whatever reason, his grandiosity tends to carry the day. This is not the first time the court has strayed beyond the bounds of judicial propriety, and it certainly won't be the last. but every time it happened in the past, the Court was weakened as an institution and its legitimacy as an impartial arbiter of the laws was called into question. The Court only has legitimacy through the force of its arguments. When those arguments are weak, or written to satisfy the spirit of the age, the Court loses some measure of its authority,

    In fact, the only thing that could be worse than this opinion will be the opinion where the majority ties itself in knots explaining that the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment doesn't say what it clearly says when it clashes with the imperatives of gay marriage. That's the next bad decision coming down the pike. But like I said, its fairly obvious that this court does not feel tied to the text of the Constitution in any meaningful way.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Be not deceived. A court which so willingly departs from the text of the Constitution, from long-established precedent, from history and tradition, a court unmoored from its traditional role as a passive interpreter of the laws, will not hesitate to invalidate legislation which you support. Kennedy and the other members of the court might be on the side of angels now, but if their only guide is their own conscience, there is no limit to what they would consider outside the bounds of the democratic process.

    Just ask Dred Scott.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/

    So now you think the government should be able to imprison me for playing with my winky? You have some funny ideas about freedom.
    '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
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    Playing with your winky should be considered free speech. Doing it in public though might be considered the same as yelling "fire" in a theater, i.e. something we really don't want to see. LOL.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,235 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    It doesn't. I'm not defending conservatives by excoriating Kennedy. Give me an example and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. But I'm really talking about the Court as an institution. Right now Kennedy constitutes a swing vote, and for whatever reason, his grandiosity tends to carry the day. This is not the first time the court has strayed beyond the bounds of judicial propriety, and it certainly won't be the last. but every time it happened in the past, the Court was weakened as an institution and its legitimacy as an impartial arbiter of the laws was called into question. The Court only has legitimacy through the force of its arguments. When those arguments are weak, or written to satisfy the spirit of the age, the Court loses some measure of its authority,

    In fact, the only thing that could be worse than this opinion will be the opinion where the majority ties itself in knots explaining that the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment doesn't say what it clearly says when it clashes with the imperatives of gay marriage. That's the next bad decision coming down the pike. But like I said, its fairly obvious that this court does not feel tied to the text of the Constitution in any meaningful way.

    I understand and respect your position. As a layman I lack the understanding of the Constitution that you have, but the issue here seems to be strict constructionism v. an evolutionary view of how it should be interpreted, using precedence and trying to apply "the founders' intent" in modern times, and I fall into the latter camp. How to interpret the Militia Clause and the terms "bear arms" and "militia" is a good example of that conflict, and one in which the Court has ruled both ways; most recently on the side of bearing arms in a blatantly partisan political decision.

    Since the Court's role is not defined it has evolved by successfully defining its own powers and getting the other Branches to go along. John Marshall's balls played a large role in that, as did - and does - the often vague gibberish that results from the way legislation is cobbled together.

    All of us **** about "activist judges" be it you complaining about the Warren Court or me the Unholy Trio of Thomas, Alito and Scalia. (I cheerfully concede that Alito is not at the level of politicization the other two .)

    As to Free Exercise, I can only repeat what I've said here before. Marriage is a civil contract licensed by the state ("state" in the sense of any level of government) and sealing the deal may be done either by state functionaries or clergy, the latter acting as agents of the state in doing so. No one has suggested seriously that any member of the clergy should be forced to conduct a marriage ceremony. It would be fun though, to see a pair of gay atheists sue just because they wanted to be married by the Archbishop of Utah or the head LDS honcho.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 4,906 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    How to interpret the Militia Clause and the terms "bear arms" and "militia" is a good example of that conflict, and one in which the Court has ruled both ways; most recently on the side of bearing arms in a blatantly partisan political decision.

    But now there is no need to interpret it at all.

    This is my rifle this is my gun...one is for dignity one is for fun!
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    So. bottom line is, the federal government has sanctioned these unions, and the only way to change that, well, actually there are two ways, is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, or a radical change in the government. Neither are going to happen. Thus, even though anathema to myself for religious reasons, I have to accept it, at least for the present, since my religious beliefs can't intrude on the rights of others.

    Now, whether God accepts it or is preparing for the destruction of the new Sodom and Gomorrah remains to be seen. Perhaps we should delete the phrase "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    Since it was not in the original, that might be appropriate.

    CHjMc8hUsAMbGhN.jpg

    ^^^ This except for the stupid part.
    '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
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    I'm not expecting Armageddon, at least this week. Besides, I have fishing plans. Oh, BTW, Chris, I have no intention of stooping to your name calling or innuendo level.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,550 Senior Member
    I don't care who marries what.... I'm still indifferent to all forms of marriage. It's basically a legal binding contract between two lovers.
    Forget Obama and SCOTUS - this is a huge victory for divorce lawyers. Marriage and divorce is BIG business in the good ol USA.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    My absolute favorite thing about this decision is the upset right wingers who are saying they are going to now move to Canada.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 4,906 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    My absolute favorite thing about this decision is the upset right wingers who are saying they are going to now move to Canada.

    Maybe they can bunk up with Alec Baldwin
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 22,472 Senior Member
    flytrap wrote: »
    I'm not expecting Armageddon, at least this week. Besides, I have fishing plans. Oh, BTW, Chris, I have no intention of stooping to your name calling or innuendo level.

    I said ignore the stupid part.
    '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: 22,472 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    My absolute favorite thing about this decision is the upset right wingers who are saying they are going to now move to Canada.

    My favorite are the ones who are going to set themselves on fire.
    '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
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    My absolute favorite thing about this decision is the upset right wingers who are saying they are going to now move to Canada.

    I just choked on my coffee.. First Randy Quaid and now this..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    There's been a lot of stupid commentary on the right, a lot of calls for never-gonna-happen proposals like jurisdiction stripping and constitutional amendments and retention elections for judges. And of course, the usual resistance in the usual places. If Mike Huckabee doesn't wish to be compared unfavorably with Orval Farbus, he needs to cool it. But there's been some good stuff too. I enjoyed this.

    I am in favor of arranging the laws to permit gay couples to arrange their domestic affairs in whatever way they see fit, and to have those affairs blessed by whatever authorities are inclined to bless them: Episcopalian church, Sam’s Club, Taylor Swift, Grand Mystic Royal Order of the Nobles of the Ali Baba Temple of the Shrine — it’s a free country, Sunshine. Unlike Barack Obama, I did not arrive at my views on same-sex affairs recently and at a moment of political convenience. But, that being said, the idea that lurking in the penumbras of our 18th-century Constitution is a fundamental national right to gay marriage is simply preposterous. It is not there. It is a fiction, and, just like the Harry Potter novels, the fact that it is very, very popular does not mean that it is not fiction.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420406/john-roberts-decision-kevin-d-williamson?target=author&tid=903320
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 4,906 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    just like the Harry Potter novels, the fact that it is very, very popular does not mean that it is not fiction.[/I]

    ****. Hogwarts isn't real!

    [/packs bag or Quiditch gear for trip to Canada]
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Idiots. . .wanting to move to Canada to get away from Homos. Don't they know Canada already has gay marriage?

    I'm moving to Mexico! Wait. . .****.

    I'm headed to Irel-wut? Ireland too?

    <Sets self on fire>
  • flytrapflytrap Banned Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    I said ignore the stupid part.

    Ah, my bad, the symbols were unfamiliar, thought you were trying to emphasize it.
    There are worse things in life than being a born cynic.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Idiots. . .wanting to move to Canada to get away from Homos. Don't they know Canada already has gay marriage?

    I'm moving to Mexico! Wait. . .****.

    I'm headed to Irel-wut? Ireland too?

    <Sets self on fire>

    What!! We have gay marriage, who knew..

    When will Texas put their National Guard on high alert??

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...

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.