|
On June 27 2013 03:51 DeathProfessor wrote:
Believe it or not even with my past post history, I really am happy with SCOTUS. They have given a giant move toward power to the states with the striking down of DOMA and Article 4 states can have freedom to decided their voting process and if they wish to ratify gay marriage.
Hate to burst your bubble but I don't really see this as a shift of power in favor of the states. The limit imposed on DOMA was based on the 14th ammendment and it seems that it will likely lead to a federal institution of same sex marriage.
|
On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be.
Shame he didn't feel like sticking to his guns yesterday then, eh?
|
So if it's declared unconstitutional at a federal level, does that mean it trickles down and all the states have to respect the federal ruling of SSM being legal and it being against the constitution to discriminate against that?
Alternatively, if the states aren't required to immediately adapt to this ruling wouldn't it take one lawsuit in each state which would then make that court look at the principle established in this case and then automatically make SSM legal?
If anyone could clarify, that would be awesome.
|
It's a sad day when people jump for joy when one of the most basic of human rights isn't so narrowly stripped away. This is ridiculous that all of a sudden everyone becomes politically engaged over something that should ultimately be a non-issue. Instead of debating whether or not gay marriage should be legal, why aren't people asking why the state should have any say in peoples marital preferences to begin with?
|
On June 27 2013 03:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. Oh please. Do you remember Scalia during the oral arguments of this case? He was committing basic logical fallacies and outright bullying the plaintiff while barely touching the defense. And yeah, social change is kinda a big part of his job. If we just let the majority decide stuff we'd still be able to own people. Part of the supreme court's job is to force social change when the majority becomes oppressive.
Hey, I never said I agreed with him, but I don't think he is evil for having a specific view. Social change isn't part of his job, because he was appointed because he did not believe it was the governments role to enforce social change. That is how Judges work at that level, because they sit on a panel of judges who will think differently than them and they are not the only person making the decision.
And at that level, Judges don't bully attorneys. You don't go before the Supreme Court and expect to answer easy questions. You prepare to answer the tough ones and deal with the Judges.
|
On June 27 2013 03:57 Tibbroar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. Shame he didn't feel like sticking to his guns yesterday then, eh?
WTF are you talking about? He is one of the 4 who ruled for the law and wrote a dissenting opinion.
|
On June 27 2013 03:58 alwaysfeeling wrote:
It's a sad day when people jump for joy when one of the most basic of human rights isn't so narrowly stripped away. This is ridiculous that everyone all of a sudden becomes politically engaged over something that should ultimately be a non-issue. Instead of debating whether or not gay marriage should be legal, why aren't people asking why the state should have any say in the marital preferences of anyone to begin with?
because religion still important in murica
|
On June 27 2013 04:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:57 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. Shame he didn't feel like sticking to his guns yesterday then, eh? WTF are you talking about? He is one of the 4 who ruled for the law and wrote a dissenting opinion.
Uh, no. He was one of the majority on the voting rights act idiocy.
|
On June 27 2013 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. Oh please. Do you remember Scalia during the oral arguments of this case? He was committing basic logical fallacies and outright bullying the plaintiff while barely touching the defense. And yeah, social change is kinda a big part of his job. If we just let the majority decide stuff we'd still be able to own people. Part of the supreme court's job is to force social change when the majority becomes oppressive. Hey, I never said I agreed with him, but I don't think he is evil for having a specific view. Social change isn't part of his job, because he was appointed because he did not believe it was the governments role to enforce social change. That is how Judges work at that level, because they sit on a panel of judges who will think differently than them and they are not the only person making the decision. And at that level, Judges don't bully attorneys. You don't go before the Supreme Court and expect to answer easy questions. You prepare to answer the tough ones and deal with the Judges.
Funny how the defense got almost none of those "tough questions" from him.
|
On June 27 2013 04:09 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:01 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. Oh please. Do you remember Scalia during the oral arguments of this case? He was committing basic logical fallacies and outright bullying the plaintiff while barely touching the defense. And yeah, social change is kinda a big part of his job. If we just let the majority decide stuff we'd still be able to own people. Part of the supreme court's job is to force social change when the majority becomes oppressive. Hey, I never said I agreed with him, but I don't think he is evil for having a specific view. Social change isn't part of his job, because he was appointed because he did not believe it was the governments role to enforce social change. That is how Judges work at that level, because they sit on a panel of judges who will think differently than them and they are not the only person making the decision. And at that level, Judges don't bully attorneys. You don't go before the Supreme Court and expect to answer easy questions. You prepare to answer the tough ones and deal with the Judges. Funny how the defense got almost none of those "tough questions" from him.
Not really, they likely expected it, since the entire thing is a social issue and he is opposed to the federal court being involved in those.
|
On June 27 2013 04:07 Tibbroar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:02 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:57 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. Shame he didn't feel like sticking to his guns yesterday then, eh? WTF are you talking about? He is one of the 4 who ruled for the law and wrote a dissenting opinion. Uh, no. He was one of the majority on the voting rights act idiocy.
That is a separate case and the ruling in that wasn't that the voting right law wasn't allow. The ruling was that congress needs to update the voting rights law, rather than keep renewing the 50 year old version.
|
On June 27 2013 03:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
So if it's declared unconstitutional at a federal level, does that mean it trickles down and all the states have to respect the federal ruling of SSM being legal and it being against the constitution to discriminate against that?
Alternatively, if the states aren't required to immediately adapt to this ruling wouldn't it take one lawsuit in each state which would then make that court look at the principle established in this case and then automatically make SSM legal?
If anyone could clarify, that would be awesome.
The ruling has nothing to do with that, no. States can choose to not allow SSM within their state and also not respect the SSM performed in other states. What this ruling does is that in the states that allow SSM, the federal government must consider them married for purposes of federal law such as estate tax, social security etc.
|
Hell its about time. This is a big step in the right direction, but there is still work to be done.
|
On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married.
Exactly. If states were required to recognize out-of-state marriage licences, it would mean that if even one state in the US had gay marriage legalized (and I believe there are currently 12 such states) then gay marriage would essentially be legal everywhere.
Of course, some parts of the US would get really really really butthurt about that (stupid bigoted bible belt), which is probably why that hasn't happened yet.
Here's to hoping for states being forced to recognize out-of-state marriage licences in the future!
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 04:30 biology]major wrote:
wrong thread
LOL! What thread were you intending to post in?
|
On June 27 2013 00:45 Brainsurgeon wrote:
Good on ya, US of A!
It takes us a while to realize that straight white christian males aren't the only ones who deserve rights rights, but we always figure it out eventually!
|
On June 27 2013 04:33 DavoS wrote:It takes us a while to realize that straight white christian males aren't the only ones who deserve rights rights, but we always figure it out eventually!
And some of us never realize that, and will always be loathsome bigots *cough cough bible belt*.
|
I can't tell you how happy this makes me.
|
On June 27 2013 04:33 DavoS wrote:It takes us a while to realize that straight white christian males aren't the only ones who deserve rights rights, but we always figure it out eventually!
I disagree on the white christian part.Many of the people that vigurously oppose gay rights are in fact african american and latino.this aint a white vs black thing.This is religious homophobia vs lgbt.And I think I have seen about the same number of african american pastors preaching lots of anti-gay hate as white pastors.not to mention the latinos who are mostly catholic and we all know the catholic churches' stance on gay marriage
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
