Gringo allstar
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 3,215
- Reaction score
- 1,010
- Location
- Detroit area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Are you really under the impression that the people in the south were against segregation and those dastardly judges forced it on them?
That was the argument the segregationists used as well...
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.To help me not have to read the entire ruling, and since it wasn't described in the article (which I did read), what citation from the Constitution did the court cite as the basis of the ruling?
Actually Deuce your whole party was for slavery back then. Be it judges or the average joe, the democrats were all about segregation and slavery for people that felt were inferior to them(white democrats). I would think you would have done some research on your party of choice?
You seem to know a lot about segregation?? SouthernDemocrat..:shock:
Your understanding of Roe v Wade is fatally flawed.
Oh look. He's playing the race card. :roll:
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.
Here is the decision (it starts on page 17)
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6th-CA-marriage-ruling-11-6-14.pdf
The dissent starts on page 53, and basically answers your question about how poorly the court ruled.
The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk
or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it
wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s
constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who
should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and
federalism.
She nailed it.
So it was the will of the people?
Now how on earth could any federal judge imagine that federalism, or the right of the people of a state to make their laws, had anything to do with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes slavery was the will of the southern democrats also known as "people" just like racist judges can also be refered to as "people"
The people of a state do not have the right to make laws that violate the 14th amendment. Yet the discussion in the majority opinion surrounded not on the question of "do these laws violate the 14th amendment rights of the plaintiffs" but "What is the best means for deciding same-sex marriage." Federalism is relevant, but the lengthy discourse of it in the decisions in lieu of a sufficient discussion of the issue at hand is erroneous.Now how on earth could any federal judge imagine that federalism, or the right of the people of a state to make their laws, had anything to do with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
One can appreciate the ruling which in effect says that courts should interpret law established by legislatures and not establish law from the bench.
That said, I'm incredibly tired of the whole debate. I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and how they want to do it. Get the government out of this mess and let people live their own lives as they see fit - want a church/religious marriage, find a church to marry you - want a civil marriage, visit a lawyer, create a contract, sign off on it and you're done.
Government is far too intrusive in the personal lives of citizens and this nonsense is a prime example of it.
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.
Here is the decision (it starts on page 17)
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6th-CA-marriage-ruling-11-6-14.pdf
The dissent starts on page 53, and basically answers your question about how poorly the court ruled.
The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk
or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it
wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s
constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who
should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and
federalism.
She nailed it.
Also, fun fact: Over the past 5 years, 24 out of the 25 decisions by the sixth circuit appealed to SCOTUS have been reversed. That's the worst in the nation. Not a very good track record.
Ok great. So upholding segregation was judges upholding the will of the people.
Yeah the wholly fails to grasp the constitution is why those 2 judges should be impeached
The 14th amendment was created for the express purpose of limiting federalism when it comes to individual rights. State governments cannot treat people differently under the law based on irrational prejudice.
The people of a state do not have the right to make laws that violate the 14th amendment. Yet the discussion in the majority opinion surrounded not on the question of "do these laws violate the 14th amendment rights of the plaintiffs" but "What is the best means for deciding same-sex marriage." Federalism is relevant, but the lengthy discourse of it in the decisions in lieu of a sufficient discussion of the issue at hand is erroneous.
No you're arguing that the courts should overturn the will of the people,
as in the state constitution of MI. Which they did, now stop whining although you wear it well.
No it was a decision made by men in black robes who were racist bigots. It had nothing to do with the will of the "southern people" it had everything to do with the will of racist judges. This really isn't that hard if you would take the time to think it through. Who's hard up for an argument?? Nice try but you failed miserably.
They aren't very bright at all if this is how they ruled
Then again, the best i could say for them is compartmentalized insanity
Wasn't this heavily expected? I imagine now we can finally have the Supreme Court rule and end the SSM discussion.
Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?