|
This is a great step but still a long way only 12 states that's 38 to go I hope soon it will be the norm for any state to have same-sex-marriage as it is to have human rights.
|
On June 27 2013 04:45 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:33 DavoS wrote: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! 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
I am going to have to agree with him that homophobia is generally an issue for all races equally. Everyone could stand to work on it.
|
On June 27 2013 04:45 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:33 DavoS wrote: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! 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
Agreed. Prop 8 was passed in California partly because of huge minority turnout. There's a reason the Catholic Church officially sides with the GOP more often than not but goes against them when it comes to the immigration issue. Hispanic immigrants are far more conservative Catholics.
|
On June 27 2013 04:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:45 theking1 wrote:On June 27 2013 04:33 DavoS wrote: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! 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 I am going to have to agree with him that homophobia is generally an issue for all races equally. Everyone could stand to work on it.
Indeed, one reason why Proposition 8 in California passed was because in 2008 there was a record turnout of African Americans who are generally as socially conservative as the whites of the GOP. If the GOP hadnt built its foundation on racial hatred they probably would have a majority of voters behind their socially retrograde policies.
|
On June 27 2013 04:45 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:33 DavoS wrote: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! 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
Yeah pretty much this. It's a lot more than just white and/or christian.
Still, this is awesome. Really happy to hear this result. Don't think any more needs to be said about it other than that.
|
This is great but I'm still disturbed that 4 voted against something so fundamental. I need to find their dissent and read it and see what crackpot basis they voted upon.
National opinion is moving more and more in favor of gay marriage. It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS makes it fully legal and all the old bigots die off.
|
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.
The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives.
|
On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt 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. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives.
I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue.
|
On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt 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. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue.
I believe there ruling on that was simply that the people challenging the law did not have standing which from a purely legal standpoint I could agree with.
|
On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt 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. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue.
Their reasoning there was really cool actually. They ruled that private parties couldn't defend the enforcement of a law in court if they had no legal stake in the law. I imagine that the dissenters just straight up wanted to throw out prop 8 (I haven't read their opinions though) and didn't want to do something as subtle as the majority.
|
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 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?
Maybe you should look into the history of marriage. One could ask what is really at issue -- preferential treatment -- and why it is that the institution even exists in the form that it does. HINT: it sculpts society in such a way as to consolidate power, at the cost of atypical individual lifestyle choices.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating victories that aren't ultimate, right? You do grin when you kill a scouting worker yes?
|
On June 27 2013 03:58 alwaysfeeling wrote:
why aren't people asking why the state should have any say in peoples marital preferences to begin with?
Because all the benefits of marriages are given by... the state. Anyone can live together and do some stupid ceremony and be "married" in spirit, they just don't get tax breaks or hospital visitation rights, etc.
There are always going to be opinions as to what is acceptable for marriages. Personally, I don't imagine gay couples when I think of marriage and as such I've never supported making it legal.
|
On June 27 2013 05:12 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt 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. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue. I believe there ruling on that was simply that the people challenging the law did not have standing which from a purely legal standpoint I could agree with.
Yeah, people have a hard time wrapping their brain around the concept that you can't make laws or bring lawsuits for shit that does not directly effect you. Like people marrying people that are not you or someone you are married to.
|
On June 27 2013 05:15 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt 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. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue. Their reasoning there was really cool actually. They ruled that private parties couldn't defend the enforcement of a law in court if they had no legal stake in the law. I imagine that the dissenters just straight up wanted to throw out prop 8 (I haven't read their opinions though) and didn't want to do something as subtle as the majority.
This is why I want to read Scalia's dissent in DOMA, because he normally objects to why the ruling is being happening, rather than the overall effect of the ruling. If it empowers the federal government to do things he doesn't think should happen, he normally dissents.
|
On June 27 2013 05:15 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:58 alwaysfeeling wrote:
why aren't people asking why the state should have any say in peoples marital preferences to begin with? Because all the benefits of marriages are given by... the state. Anyone can live together and do some stupid ceremony and be "married" in spirit, they just don't get tax breaks or hospital visitation rights, etc. There are always going to be opinions as to what is acceptable for marriages. Personally, I don't imagine gay couples when I think of marriage and as such I've never supported making it legal.
So what you are saying is that just because you don't typically think of a gay couple when you think of marriage, therefore a lesbian should not have visitation rights to visit her partner who's sick and in the hospital? Because when you say you don't support making gay marriage legal, that is what you are saying: that gay couples do not deserve the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities that you get to enjoy. Despicable.
|
Funny how they named the thing "Defense of Marriage Act". As if traditional marriage is in any way affected by gay people having equal rights. Well, this is a great day. I am proud of you 'muricans 
|
On June 27 2013 05:28 Ventris wrote:Funny how they named the thing "Defense of Marriage Act". As if traditional marriage is in any way affected by gay people having equal rights. Well, this is a great day. I am proud of you 'muricans
We're pretty proud of ourselves. This is something that I've kind of been tracking for a while and its great to see the US shift away from the old mode of thinking
|
On June 27 2013 05:28 Ventris wrote:Funny how they named the thing "Defense of Marriage Act". As if traditional marriage is in any way affected by gay people having equal rights. Well, this is a great day. I am proud of you 'muricans
Dawwww, ty Ventris ^_^
We're glad to finally be catching up to the rest of the world on this issue.
|
On June 27 2013 05:01 On_Slaught wrote:
This is great but I'm still disturbed that 4 voted against something so fundamental. I need to find their dissent and read it and see what crackpot basis they voted upon.
National opinion is moving more and more in favor of gay marriage. It's only a matter of time before the SCOTUS makes it fully legal and all the old bigots die off.
Look no farther than supremecourt.gov. In our internet age, finding dissent isn't difficult at all. Let me paste you my favorite parts, as one agreeing in total with Scalia's dissent and with some parts of the chief justice's dissent.
The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?
I recommend to all those Scalia haters to read through his dissent and ask themselves what role the Supreme Court has in our constitutional society. I, like Scalia, wonder what happened to ruling on cases where an aggrieved party had their constitutional rights violated by an act of congress? Or, did the majority justices, "have in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit." Why then bring before the court a person who won their case? I grant that the bulk of the disagreement is hard to see for the quick perusal, so I recommend the first 3-4 pages of the large-margin pdf.
I'll leave by quoting another part of the dissent, which helps illustrate why I think the ruling as so insane:
Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 05:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:15 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt 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:http On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue. Their reasoning there was really cool actually. They ruled that private parties couldn't defend the enforcement of a law in court if they had no legal stake in the law. I imagine that the dissenters just straight up wanted to throw out prop 8 (I haven't read their opinions though) and didn't want to do something as subtle as the majority. This is why I want to read Scalia's dissent in DOMA, because he normally objects to why the ruling is being happening, rather than the overall effect of the ruling. If it empowers the federal government to do things he doesn't think should happen, he normally dissents.
This isn't true. Scalia is an activist judge, he's just in denial. Look at the ruling yesterday.
He pulls out the judicial activism card when it disagrees with his ideology. There's plenty of arguments of DOMA being an example of the federal government overstepping its grounds, yet he doesn't mention them at all. He's a huge hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
