ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
No, I said it is funny that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your supposition about liberals "not caring" about marriage...... while expanding the right to marry. You can characterize your overlooking your contradiction as "interesting", but apparently it is not "interesting" enough for you to explore.
I mean, really, what has changed? You can't say gay marriage doesn't affect anyone other than the couple AND sociaty as a hole has changed. Gay marriage has to affect other people in order for sociatyou to be changed by it.
Anyway the Supreme Court forcing a change in law doesn't mean sociaty has move one ounce on the issue.
Funny, I still cant legally carry in my state. I guess now that states must recognize gay marriage, they will also have to recognize CCW's from out of state?
Which rights "specifically written into the Constitution are nullified"?Funny how rights that are so important that they were specifically written into the Constitution are nullified by the government, but they manage to find other things they claim are guaranteed by the Constitution, that are not even mentioned.
But, hey, that's will never be a problem when a government does that.
Which rights "specifically written into the Constitution are nullified"?
Well let's see.
One example: The liberal/progressive forces are attempting to reward illegal aliens, and in fact are promoting more to come here. This agenda is being pushed at the extreme peril of the Black Communities, who apparently aren't viewed as important, other than to gin up occasional emotional responses that will be met with nothing but platitudes from the left.
In light of everything else, how long do you think voters are going to tolerate the heavy handed actions that are being force fed to them?
I think the court is a check and balance to a system which can turn very bad. The court has kept it in place. This is a limited representative democratic republic. We vote in those who represent us. The democratic facet can turn ugly and be mob rule as Thomas Jefferson said. If I have the numbers I can keep you from getting anywhere or having any rights. The court is in place to make the final decision based on the Constitution or extrapolate from the document what it might say today if written and they fill in the meaning. In this way the document stays alive. This is necessary unless like Jefferson thought the document should be reworks periodically. The court decides and we live by the decision. Some decisions are popular and others not so much. This has maintained the status quo it can give the minorities a voice even against the numbers.
Same sex marriage began as one of these issues where no matter what LGBTQ people did they would never have enough numbers to win anything. The number of supporters did grow and eventually it turned into the court case. Same sex marriage won in court. Is it force feeding the nation? Perhaps. This is not the first time decisions like this happen. The thing is same sex marriage happened to be supported by the majority according to the poles. So I guess it is not force feeding. It made the decision for the nation which was divided by states. More states supported SSM. The nation needed equal policy and this did that. Some are unhappy but this is not force fed. The court maintained a balance. It was not heavy handed. The court against all reason elected George W. Bush President and the nation went along with this. This is not new and ground breaking for the court to make decisions like this. We only need to follow along as Americans have always done.
Well, there IS a difference between living with someone and being married under the law. Ask any 25 year old guy, many of whom aren't ready to commit. Under the law, married people become one, in a way. Together they pay a lower income tax rate than if they are single. One can represent the other when he becomes incapacitated. They can share insurance premiums. And so on.
In the words of the mother at the end of the movie "Blast From the Past": "No, Calvin. It's NOT the same!"
Legally civil unions and marriage are about the same thing.
you must be to young to have been around then, but I was. So take my word for it: this wasn't an issue anyone ever heard of until the mid to late 90s. go ask anyone alive then and they will be happy to verify that.
Nope.
So, we selectively protect others rights, depending on cause, or item.
Of course that is true. But, it's also true that recognizing a concealed carry license and recognizing someone's marital status as recognized by another State is just not an analogous situation.
You are the one calling for more restrictions on freedoms. That is much more in line with Middle Eastern Politics whether you accept it or not. The Constitution is and always will be the ultimate authority. It is intended to stand up to people such as yourself who would seek to restrict our freedoms (much like middle eastern countries). You are looking in a mirror and trying to deflect what is staring back.
Yeah, DO let me know when inanimate objects can enter into a contract.
Yes, I'm a little confused by the several posts that claim that SCOTUS does not have the final say on interpreting the constitution
and the vague assertions that the SC doesn't have any way to enforce its rulings.
Is not the whole purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and have the final say in such matters?
Are posters suggesting this ruling will prompt another such action, or series of actions? Seems unlikely at best.
Desegregation was extremely unpopular among a certain group in society, and this same posturing was attempted then. But eventually, the ruling was enforced. In today's society, it seems an extreme stretch to think that history might repeat itself over this ruling, much less be taken any further. I suppose anything's possible, just seems highly unlikely.
Then the whole thing will blow over when sexual orientation is finally recognized as a civil right.
Nice try, but no cigar for you. The constitution is not the ultimate authority anymore, the SCOTUS is. Your silly attempts to characterize me doesn't change what this has become. And you blindly refuse to recognize it. You would burn the constitution tomorrow if you thought that would get you what you want. Have your M&Ms now when you want them, and screw everyone else that comes after.
I asked my mom. She said you're wrong.
Once again you are completely wrong. Do you even know how the Constitution works? Have you read it? Have you ever taken a Conlaw course? I suggest that you do.
I have more respect for the Constitution than you will ever know. The bigots cried about the Constitution when civil rights were expanded for blacks...and the bigots are crying today. It is THEY who spit on the Constitution and the principles upon which is was founded.
People of your ilk would love to do away with the Constitution and its guarantees to return to the days when only white landowners had rights in America.....well....sorry clownboy....but that isn't ever going to happen.
Nothing in the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what it means. That idea is purely the Court's own invention. Chief Justice Marshall asserted it generally in Marbury v. Madison, and much later the Court asserted it very plainly in a 1958 civil rights case. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958).
If you are talking about what I wrote, it was not vague, and it was not just an assertion. It is obvious that the Supreme Court has no way to enforce its rulings, as Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 78:
"The judiciary . . . can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
The people have the final say on everything in our system of government. In Lincoln's famous phrase, which he borrowed from John Wycliff, who had used it in referring to the Bible, we have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Although only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, the very fact that remedy is available proves the Judicial Branch is as much a servant of the people as the other two brancjes.
That depends on what action you are referring to. Justice Scalia pointed out that dictates like this one can have no effect unless either the states choose to give them one, or the Executive Branch can force them to.
No one knows whether any state will ignore this ruling. But any state could ignore it if it chose to.
That is as incoherent as any of Anthony Kennedy's gobbledygook. No one's sexual orientation is a "civil right," any more than his tastes in movies, or architecture, or food. And new constitutional rights do not leap into existence by spontaneous generation, whenever a few judges decide to wave their hands.
Wasn't the Constitution originally intended to protect the white landowners and not the blacks?
SCOTUS decision was democratic. It took public opinion and social welfare into account, in addition to the Constitution. This is a pattern. Read more at SCOTUS: The People’s Court | Sam Hillestad
Once again you are completely wrong. Do you even know how the Constitution works? Have you read it? Have you ever taken a Conlaw course? I suggest that you do.
I have more respect for the Constitution than you will ever know. The bigots cried about the Constitution when civil rights were expanded for blacks...and the bigots are crying today. It is THEY who spit on the Constitution and the principles upon which is was founded.
People of your ilk would love to do away with the Constitution and its guarantees to return to the days when only white landowners had rights in America.....well....sorry clownboy....but that isn't ever going to happen.
SCOTUS decision was democratic. It took public opinion and social welfare into account, in addition to the Constitution. This is a pattern. Read more at SCOTUS: The People’s Court | Sam Hillestad
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?