|
On June 30 2015 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances. State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples. This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment. Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
|
On June 30 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances. State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples. This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment. Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts. If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
I can't even take you seriously. You are essentially saying that any decision that is 5-4 (Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, etc.) is invalid? What a joke. The court wasn't designed to be "6-3+ or bust". It was designed with the fact that 5-4 decisions could happen in mind. You're just being a bitter child over the fact that the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that you disagree with.
All you're doing is coming up with weak excuses to disagree with this because you don't have any legitimate complaints about the ruling. You couldn't even come up with anything to address my point about discrimination under the law.
|
So "established by state" means "established by state or federal government" if the court wants it to, "prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof" means "prescribed by the state's legislature unless the court decides the legislature isn't prescribing in the way the court wants it to," in which case the court makes up what the constitution says, and now the court has "discovered" that people have a "right" to legally recognized marriage, and treating everyone the same isn't sufficient for satisfying the 14th amendment because the court can decide how states must treat people.
Such a sad week for our country. I wonder if the constitution or even the legislative branch is going to be relevant in 100 years.
|
On June 30 2015 08:45 feanaro wrote:
So "established by state" means "established by state or federal government" if the court wants it to, "prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof" means "prescribed by the state's legislature unless the court decides the legislature isn't prescribing in the way the court wants it to," in which case the court makes up what the constitution says, and now the court has "discovered" that people have a "right" to legally recognized marriage, and treating everyone the same isn't sufficient for satisfying the 14th amendment because the court can decide how states must treat people.
Such a sad week for our country. I wonder if the constitution or even the legislative branch is going to be relevant in 100 years.
This shit is hilarious. I wonder if people said the same shit when the court ordered that segregation wasn't cool. Likely I think.
|
On June 30 2015 08:45 feanaro wrote:I wonder if the constitution or even the legislative branch is going to be relevant in 100 years.
Of course they will, although the former's legal meaning will change, as it always has. In the past two-hundred-odd years, the Supreme Court has held, among other things, that courts have the power to review the constitutionality of legislation; the national bank was constitutionally permissible; African-American slaves couldn't enjoy the rights of citizens; separate but equal was permissible; government couldn't regulate interstate commerce; the government could broadly regulate interstate commerce; the Japanese Internment was permissible; separate but equal wasn't permissible; that there's a constitutional right to privacy; and so on. Heck, one of those decisions even led to a civil war. Last week, the Court decided whether a handful of words in a statutory provision should be read in isolation or together with those of other provisions and that it really meant what it said two years ago. We'll survive. (And I write this even as someone who sympathizes much more with Roberts' opinion than Kennedy's.)
|
On June 30 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances. State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples. This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment. Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts. If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
Yep, the 4 judges who voted against it were clearly doing judicial activism, glad you agree.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
I can never quite tell if the posts in this thread in as liberal a place as TL shows that there's still a long way to go, or that simply everyone of those sorts of opinions simply come out to play on this topic.
|
United States1941 Posts
On June 30 2015 18:55 marvellosity wrote:
I can never quite tell if the posts in this thread in as liberal a place as TL shows that there's still a long way to go, or that simply everyone of those sorts of opinions simply come out to play on this topic.
There is a way to go. I think the biggest thing is that there will always be a decent portion of the population who will always be against LGBT's, especially in the US where ~40% of the population are evangelicals.
Don't worry though they die off eventually and the younger generations seem to be having less and less of an issue with it~
|
On June 30 2015 17:51 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On June 30 2015 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2015 02:41 Millitron wrote:On June 30 2015 02:22 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote:
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president). Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected. No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions. And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation? Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding? There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances. State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples. This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment. Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts. If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism. Yep, the 4 judges who voted against it were clearly doing judicial activism, glad you agree.
They very well might have been. Just like the 5 judges that voted the other way. When 8 out of 9 judges voted along the lines of the political parties that put them on the court it looks very much like a ruling based on politics. And not like a straightforward "textbook" judicial case. Although I dont think any of us have the legal expertise to say one way or the other on our own.
In general my impression due to media reporting is that the US supreme court is too partisan and "political" in general.
|
You never know. Social dynamics are very difficult to predict. Perhaps in 50 years we will see a conservatism on the rise. Ultimately there is no such thing as social progress, only change. As social "progress" may be defined differently depending on the basic ethical axioms You assume.
|
Can we have the option to permanently have the rainbow horse/tide/whatever it may be on other subsites?
|
On June 30 2015 20:02 Silvanel wrote:
You never know. Social dynamics are very difficult to predict. Perhaps in 50 years we will see a conservatism on the rise. Ultimately there is no such thing as social progress, only change. As social "progress" may be defined differently depending on the basic ethical axioms You assume.
Social conservatism, where it has risen, has generally been tied with the rise of religion. See Iran and Turkey for example.
|
Usually yes but one can imagine drastic change of social norms not stricly connected to religion. Rise of nazism is one example. Who knows what the future holds?
|
I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote:
I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead.
You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history?
Charming.
|
On June 30 2015 23:04 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote:
I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead. You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history? Charming.
I thought he was using sarcasm.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 30 2015 23:08 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:04 marvellosity wrote:On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote:
I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead. You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history? Charming. I thought he was using sarcasm.
yes I did think of that after I posted.
Then I thought, "oh well, cba to edit it now"
|
I meant for republicans, of course.
Cruz, Santorum, Trump, Bush... they all seem crestfallen. Trump actually seemed subdued in his post-Gaygeddon-interview.
As if Obama personally raped each one of them.
Personally, I am all for equal rights and I think it's kind of sad that Germany is behind even the US in such matters.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 30 2015 23:10 SixStrings wrote:
My reputation here is so in the shitter that people actually believe I want the poor to be homeless and without healthcare. Jesus...
naw, I retract, I was just slow + lazy :>
<3
|
On June 30 2015 23:08 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 23:04 marvellosity wrote:On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote:
I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead. You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history? Charming. I thought he was using sarcasm.
This is Ted Cruz. He is so loathed by his own party that other Republican senators won't talk to him. He is the banner bearer for the tea party idiots that think compromise is defeat. He shut the government down once and will do if again if he can. He is everything that is messed up about the America political system right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
