- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Yeah, it is. DOMA turns homosexuals into second-class citizens.....to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements
Actually, society is changing. It's very likely we will see more states legitimize gay marriage.It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
No, it won't.And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
Right. The guy who openly regards homosexuality as immoral is now giving political advice to the proponents of same-sex marriage. Yes, a SCOTUS dissent is an excellent platform for a concern troll... :mrgreen:"Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better."
Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.
In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.
And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
"Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent".....snip~
Scalia: 'High-Handed' Kennedy 'Demeans This Institution'
Scalia is correct the Matter should have been left to the States. They now have codified an aspect of marriage by imposing change rather than society electing that change.
Scalia sees the courts taking more and more power through judicial activism and does not like it, I agree.
It should be left to the states, where have I heard that line before?
Oh yeah, Jim crow.
Yeah, except that "judicial activism" is just another way to say "I disagree with that decision."I don't think many see that angle you are looking at. Which I would think it would be a major concern about Judicial Activism for all.
Yes, that was done intentionally, by the framers, to insulate the courts from some of the short-term political concerns, and to allow them a little more latitude to reject a majority decision when it violates the Constitution.Even more the major concern with such use thru the SCOTUS and these people with Life-term appointments.
Scalia is an ass, funny read though.
Yeah, except that "judicial activism" is just another way to say "I disagree with that decision."
Yes, that was done intentionally, by the framers, to insulate the courts from some of the short-term political concerns, and to allow them a little more latitude to reject a majority decision when it violates the Constitution.
More importantly, term limits would not change the idea that the courts can overturn a federal law, based on the claim that it violates a clause of the Constitution.
And keep in mind that if there were term limits, it would be possible that you'd currently have a court whose composition was decided mostly by Clinton and Obama. I'm sure you'd love that. :mrgreen:
Again, the ruling does not change any state laws on gay marriage. Again, one ruling shot down DOMA (a federal law). The other ruling was really about standing when a state refuses to defend a law in court... and Scalia agreed with the majority on that one.Not at the same time that he is saying that the Debate resides with the States.
Well, one thing would be different: Scalia would be off the Court by now. He was appointed in 1986 and is the longest-serving justice on the court.Then again there is the possibility that all still would have worked out the same way as it did and has. With regard to limiting the time Judges can serve.
I'm not opposed to terms. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a solution for so-called "judicial activism."what would you think the real issues would be to have in effect no lifetime appointments?
Scalia is an ass, funny read though.
Scalia sees the courts taking more and more power through judicial activism and does not like it, I agree.
It should be left to the states, where have I heard that line before?
Oh yeah, Jim crow.
Scalia is an ass, funny read though.
Nonsense - congrats on turning what could have been an interesting thread discussion into a typical name calling bitch session.
Scalia is an ass. :shrug:
I won't respond further - you're sure to take offense
It's just the truth.
In your view, perhaps - unfortunately, I'm not entitled to respond with the same level of truthfulness.
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?