Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

[ncguy]

The 15th and 19th AMENDMENTS established voting rights. Do you understand the difference between the SCOTUS conjuring a new so-called right and a Constitutional amendment?

• Not explicitly stated:
  Unlike enumerated rights (like freedom of speech or the right to bear arms), which are clearly defined in a document, unenumerated rights are not written down in the same way.
  
  
• Derived from other rights:
  They can be derived from the text and structure of the constitution, or from the understanding of fundamental principles that underpin the legal system.
  
  • Examples:
    The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution is often cited as support for the idea of unenumerated rights, suggesting that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of all the rights people possess

so scotus can "conjure" up rights as long as it is based on the constitution. The constitution doesn't directly list the right to "breathe air" for example, but i think we can all agree we have that as a right.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The Fascist trump Regime are the only ones with freedom anymore. Freedom to break laws, threaten officials, kidnap and jail innocent people without Due Process, tear away freedoms and rights from the American people, take away their health care and security, terminate their employment and careers for no reason, make citizens live in fear of a violent government, steal votes from We The People to cheat in elections, lie to the public about intimate relations with war criminals, enemies and pedophiles.

Traitor trump is the useful idiot doing all described in Project 2025 and more, shitting on the Constitution, our country, our people and our allies. Sad to watch this happen in a country that was moving forward and doing so well for so many. Criminals, liars, homophobes and racists are running our country into the ground.

Gonna take a long time to repair the damage being done. Possibly several generations, similar to after the end of the Civil War.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Poor wording. Show me what requires the government to institute marriage as a legal institution. If there is nothing then it is not, in it's legal form a right in and of itself. However, it is a right to be able to engage in the institution when offered by government. There is not one thing out there that prevents the government(s) from abolishing marriage as a legal institution (they cannot touch religious or social marriage) and stating that there will no longer be legal benefits to marriage. Let me make it clear, that I am not making any claim that it would be easy, or even desirable (as many here would like). Simply that it can be legally done, and if marriage can removed legally then it is not a right in and of itself. But as long as marriage remains a legal institution, then we have the right to engage in it, hence saying that marriage is a fundamental right. It's an automatic concatenation.

Take your disagreement up with SCOTUS.

 

[AZRWinger]

The SCOTUS simply recognized rights based on the Constitution. No "new" right was made. Even if it were, what's wrong with that? Having more rights without unduly infringing on others is typically a good thing. I would think a society built around the values of freedom and liberty would welcome rights.

What's wrong with unelected Justices dictating rights from the bench exercising authority not given to them by the Constitution? Nothing wrong with authoritarian rule as long as it's approved by Marxist Democrats.

 

[Gordy327]

What's wrong with unelected Justices dictating rights from the bench exercising authority not given to them by the Constitution? Nothing wrong with authoritarian rule as long as it's approved by Marxist Democrats.

Justices are not meant to be elected. They are chose and then affirmed. Thats how the system works. They have the authority to determine the status of rights when such challenges are brought before them. And having more rights is generally a good thing. Apparently you seem to think rights are bad.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What's wrong with unelected Justices dictating rights from the bench exercising authority not given to them by the Constitution?

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with our Constitution.

Some free educational material;

Article III​

Section 1​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2​

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

You’re welcome.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The 15th and 19th AMENDMENTS established voting rights. Do you understand the difference between the SCOTUS conjuring a new so-called right and a Constitutional amendment?

Do you think rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?

WW

 

[weaver2]

Given what this SC has done in the past it is almost certain that they will overturn Obergefeld and give the decision making power to the states.

And the reasoning will be almost identical to the reasoning in Roe; not enumerated, no legal or historical precedent and counter to biological purpose.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Gonna take a long time to repair the damage being done. Possibly several generations, similar to after the end of the Civil War.

I know you're right, and it's really a shame.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Given what this SC has done in the past it is almost certain that they will overturn Obergefeld and give the decision making power to the states.

I think it more likely than not that if SCOTUS accepts Davis’ writ (requires at least 4 Justices to be accepted) the high court will uphold Obergefell by a narrow majority.

Alito and Thomas, of course, and possibly Kavanaugh and/or Coney Barrett would vote against.

Roberts dissented in Obergefell, but has since modified his opinion, so I think there’s at least a fair chance that he would now vote to uphold Obergefell.

And the reasoning will be almost identical to the reasoning in Roe; not enumerated, no legal or historical precedent and counter to biological purpose.

Disagree. Obergefell stands on much firmer ground than Roe did.

First, there is legal precedent going all the way back to the unanimous 9-0 decision in Loving, where SCOTUS found for the appellants on the same constitutional grounds Obergefell.

Second, no right has to be enumerated to be a right. Numerous SCOTUS decisions prove that fact.

Third, there is no requirement for “biological purpose”.

Not sure where you got that idea from.

 

[VySky]

I don't think the court will overturn gay marriage.

 

[jaeger19]

Attraction is not chosen.

And that’s the point here. Sexual ORIENTATION is based on sexual attraction.
The argument from people who say “ being gay “ is a choice, begs the question of how did they choose their own sexual orientation.

Actions are. I can choose to be sexual with men even while I am not sexually attracted to men. I am able to choose an action, but I am not able to choose an attraction. However, your argument does not speak to the initial argument that I countered, which is that one has to try both in order to choose

Sure it did. Because if someone IS attracted to both . If they can choose who they are attracted to . Then how do they arrive at which to choose? Logically one would expect that you would try one option, then try another and then decide which of those options are best for you.

Circular reasoning.

Not at all

Which is what I said and actually counters

Sure. Whatever makes you feel better .

If it is instinctive, it's not a choice.

Bingo.