• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

You, nor I, know the future. You don't have any clue the actual repercussions of this decision, particularly on future Court decisions, especially with how many times the SCOTUS has changed its mind on things.

Indeed, but not the problem. The public admission by the Chief administrator and head of the Judicial Branch that the court is unmoored from the constitution is the final straw. The difference between us thinking on occasion our government doesn't give two ****s what we think and the government announcing the fact that they don't publically. The cat is well out of the bag, our system is not what it purports to be, the constitution no longer matters. The fantasy that it did has been shattered.
 
Indeed, but not the problem. The public admission by the Chief administrator and head of the Judicial Branch that the court is unmoored from the constitution is the final straw. The difference between us thinking on occasion our government doesn't give two ****s what we think and the government announcing the fact that they don't publically. The cat is well out of the bag, our system is not what it purports to be, the constitution no longer matters. The fantasy that it did has been shattered.

I think it is justice Roberts invoking the Lochner v New York decision and calling it a "discredited decision" that has got conservative legal scholars so angry at Roberts.
 
Did why did Scalia invoke his own personal religious beliefs in his dissent?

Is that not an "agenda" that has no god damned place in a constitutional discussion??????

I think he wrote that in the context of the Soviet Union's Constitution, lol. :doh
 
I think it is justice Roberts invoking the Lochner v New York decision and calling it a "discredited decision" that has got conservative legal scholars so angry at Roberts.

I'm not angry with him for saying it at all. Again, it's one of those comfortable illusions we hold that the SCOTUS and our nation is bound to the US Constitution. Just as we hold the illusion that our money is backed by something concrete.

Like if the head of the Treasury came out tomorrow with a statement saying, hey, the value we give money is something we sort of make up as we go along. If we said it would be worth nothing tomorrow, it would be worth nothing. Now, most of us know that already in our heart of hearts, but the illusion keeps the system going and us with it, so we keep the illusion.
 
From page 2 of the decision

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution
or this Court’s precedent.
The majority expressly
disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of
humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society
according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of
injustice.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
 
And this fun little gem......


And then this fun little gem.....


These are definitely the writings of someone who looks to the constitution..... rather than writing as a justice in the highest court, what amounts to a Debate Politics partisan rant.

LOL! Shot right over your head!
 
You are the one who made the claim that it was based on the Soviet Union's constitution......
Now support that ignorant ass claim.

LOL! Do you get it, or did that go over your head too? I guess so.
 
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution
or this Court’s precedent.
The majority expressly
disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of
humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society
according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of
injustice.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
okay.... so because he says it, it must be so....
 
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution
or this Court’s precedent.
The majority expressly
disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of
humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society
according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of
injustice.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

And yet what I posted clearly showed that the assenting parties DID base their opinions on the Const. They quoted how.

So he must have been drunk or is incompetent.
 
And yet what I posted clearly showed that the assenting parties DID base their opinions on the Const. They quoted how.

So he must have been drunk or is incompetent.
No, they must have been drunk or incompetent. They failed to show any Constitutional support, which is what Roberts is pointing out. He is stating what we all know; they don't care what the Constitution says, they made their minds up already, and now are trying to justify it. All as I have been saying. They want to be the deciders. A majority of 9 people in robes, deciding over the will of 320 million people.

They should have said that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to decide this, to force it on the population. It remains with the States, as the Constitutions provides for.

It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.”

It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
 
No, they must have been drunk or incompetent. They failed to show any Constitutional support, which is what Roberts is pointing out. He is stating what we all know; they don't care what the Constitution says, they made their minds up already, and now are trying to justify it. All as I have been saying. They want to be the deciders. A majority of 9 people in robes, deciding over the will of 320 million people.

They should have said that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to decide this, to force it on the population. It remains with the States, as the Constitutions provides for.

Hey, once they decided that marriage was a civil right, everything they wrote for SSM is supported.

Not that I agree with that initial decision but once made, they have to abide by it in their decisions. Too bad the conservatives couldnt respect that earlier decision.
 
yeah, nothing more comforting than unemployed 26 years old who live at home under their parents insurance(thanks Obama) deciding the direction of the county.

Besides old ass white crochetey men - is there anybody you like? Women, kids, dogs?!? Anyone?
 
yeah, nothing more comforting than unemployed 26 years old who live at home under their parents insurance(thanks Obama) deciding the direction of the county.

Just noticed this because of someone else replying to it...

You are aware what the term UNDER 26 means right???

It means once you are no longer UNDER 26, you are not covered.

So, therefore, someone 26 years old is not covered under their parent's insurance.



Just thought I would point that out.
 
Hey, once they decided that marriage was a civil right, everything they wrote for SSM is supported.

Not that I agree with that initial decision but once made, they have to abide by it in their decisions. Too bad the conservatives couldnt respect that earlier decision.

You should not respect a wrong decision, otherwise we'd still have slavery. Marriage has never been a "civil right".
 
You should not respect a wrong decision, otherwise we'd still have slavery. Marriage has never been a "civil right".

Nothing wrong about it. Unless you believe that all Americans shouldnt have due process and equal protection under the law for govt conferred benefits and privileges for the same contract.

And (reminded), yes, the courts did decide that marriage is a civil right. I already posted that. Hello?
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong about it. Unless you believe that all Americans shouldnt have due process and equal protection under the law for govt conferred benefits and privileges for the same contract.

And (reminded), yes, the courts did decide that marriage is a civil right. I already posted that. Hello?

Really, then why can't a mother marry her son? After all, it's a civil right.
 
Really, then why can't a mother marry her son? After all, it's a civil right.

This ruling most certainly allows incest marriage.
 
No need for racism here.......

Not to be a total B - but describing a physical attribute is not racist. If anything, it was a lot sexist with a little ageism thrown in. Clearly I think most men become grumpy and hard to get along with as they age. I agree I am casting a wide net - but I am willing to stand by it.
 
Not to be a total B - but describing a physical attribute is not racist. If anything, it was a lot sexist with a little ageism thrown in. Clearly I think most men become grumpy and hard to get along with as they age. I agree I am casting a wide net - but I am willing to stand by it.

And I was being a total B to the original poster, who I don't know, but have come to believe must be some southern version of Walter Matthau. Funny - but is constantly screaming at kids to get off his lawn. Read some of his posts.
 
Really, then why can't a mother marry her son? After all, it's a civil right.

Personally I dont care if they do. People marry for green cards, for example, and health benefits, etc.

Nothing will stop them from having their relationship, will it?

Just seems like a better reason that no benefits and privileges and tax breaks should be conferred on marriage by the govt.
 
Back
Top Bottom