Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Jut ask that pure applesauce jig-pokery fella Scalia.
Oh, yes, he nominated them. It's funny that you want to split hairs on that, but anything goes when they get on the Court.
Jut ask that pure applesauce jig-pokery fella Scalia.
I know! :doh
And that indicates zero degree of competanceOr relevance.
Once they previously decided that marriage was a civil right, it was all over. So here's a sample:
What should I ask him? What's wrong with him for referencing the Constitution correctly? OMG! How dare he! That's not fair!Jut ask that pure applesauce jig-pokery fella Scalia.
Yeah, well you quoted from the majority opinion. So what? How about some quotes from the dissent?
I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution, not the old Soviet Union's.You claimed they didnt base their decision on the Constitution. Apparently, they did.
See, you have the same thinking as the republican establishment. Reagan won both NY and California. Moderate Republicans are losers. If you want that kind of person, then you might as well as vote for the Democrat. Of course, that is why the media always favors the moderate republicans. They loved McCain in the primaries. Of couse, he was then the devil in the general election.
Oh, please. Texas is the Holy Grail for them. Nay, they are not for open boarders at all. And they certainly don't want illegals voting, no way!
Nothing to elaborate on, it's all right there. You have your four core liberals, who decide the case first, based on the liberal agenda, then come up with some buffoonish reasoning to justify what they just did. No need to check with the Constitution, it's not important to them.
So like I said then, they are just selectively using sin as an excuse against gays, rather than actually objecting because of religious belief.
Thanks, that's what I said.
I don't want any judges deciding because of their agenda, I want them to show fidelity to the Constitution and what it says, not what they think it ought to says. Clearly, Obama's appointees are there for the agenda, not the Constitution.
Obama's appointees? He hasn't appointed any Judges to the SCOTUS. you guys blame him for things he hasn't even done.
I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution, not the old Soviet Union's.
Jesus said there is absolutely repentance if you ask. Like I said...New Testament. For ANY sin.
But it's sad that you think the govt can make you fear God. God is a God of love and peace and compassion and nothing you write indicates that you recognize that, only vengeance and hate.
I guess all the bakers and photographers, etc, that have been serving adulterers and fornicators all these years have gone to Hell, or are going to? Ruh oh!
I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution, not the old Soviet Union's.
Is it safe to say that you aren't making an attempt to understand and that you would rather bash Christians and force them to follow your beliefs?
So, in the spirit of the post you responded to,
Is it safe to say that you aren't making an attempt to understand and that you would rather bash Christians and force them to follow your beliefs?
Did why did Scalia invoke his own personal religious beliefs in his dissent?
Is that not an "agenda" that has no god damned place in a constitutional discussion??????
Reagan was a moderate Republican. It was also almost 40 years ago.
And we are not talking about the u.s.s.r., we are talking about this ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
WTF??!?!?!?!?!?!
Please, using language directly from the majority opinion, show where they based their decision on the old Soviet Union's constitution.....
This is about the most ignorant assertion in this entire thread...
Oh, I know what ruling we are talking about, there just isn't anything in our Constitution that supports it.
b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar- riage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1)The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choic- es defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying in- terests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals dis- cord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received le- gal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.
You've got to be kidding. He is always looking to the Constitution for guidance. More than anyone on the Court.
Antonin Scalia's Dissent said:The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. 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. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.
Antonin Scalia's Dissent said:The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'" he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, "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
Antonin Scalia's Dissent said:The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. 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.
Please, show me where it is based on our Constitution. What an ignorant post.
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?