• 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]

Let me educate you a little.......clownboy.



The Court in Loving v. Virginia found that the right to marry was a "Fundamental Right" under the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It then engaged in what is called "Strict Scrutiny"...which the Court applies whenever a suspect class or fundamental right is involved. In order for the governmental restriction to prevail, the government must show a compelling governmental interest to justify the action.

The Court in the recent marriage equality case engaged in the same exact analysis.


Sorry dude.....but you lose.


Try picking up a textbook and reading a little before you come to the table next time.

We all have access to google, and your attempts to school are laughable. Of course you ignore that sexual orientation is NOT considered a constitutionally protected class. IF you had read more than a simple google search you might have known that already.
 
Last edited:
You're right, sex bots will get there first. :mrgreen:

Again, it would be quite some time until such things could legitimately be considered a legal spouse because they cannot be considered a legal person unless they have some reliable form of consciousness. The "sex bot" would need to be an AI, and then it would almost certainly have to prove that it was independent of its creator, and be free to make its own choices.
 
Again, it would be quite some time until such things could legitimately be considered a legal spouse because they cannot be considered a legal person unless they have some reliable form of consciousness. The "sex bot" would need to be an AI, and then it would almost certainly have to prove that it was independent of its creator, and be free to make its own choices.

You know my comments thus far have been tongue in cheek, but there is a painful element of truth to them. Capture just one generation's imagination and anything is possible now that the constitution officially just doesn't matter.

You know there are some apes who are very good at sign language. All it takes is five of nine justices to decide that's enough for consent and personhood.
 
We all have access to google, and your attempts to school are laughable. Of course you ignore that sexual orientation is NOT considered a constitutionally protected class. IF you had read more than a simple google search you might have known that already.

It had nothing to do with "protected class".....Doh! You might want to read the opinion. It had to do with a "Fundamental Right"....(just like Loving) and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment (just like Loving). Double DOH!!
 
You didn't predict anything. You have continually demonstrated you don't know dick about the constitution or constitutional law, that is what's on display. I don't need another chance to tell you to do your own research.

Now Clownboy......lets see if you can answer at least one of the two easier questions

1. Does the Chief Justice have any more power/authority than any of the other Justices?

2. How does one become a Chief Justice.


Or are we just going to see more shuffle and dodge?
 
It had nothing to do with "protected class".....Doh! You might want to read the opinion. It had to do with a "Fundamental Right"....(just like Loving) and substantive due process under the 14th Amendment (just like Loving). Double DOH!!

This discussion has been debated ad infinitum here on these forums. I suggest you take the time to read over past discussions and their citations before you hang yourself out on yet another limb.
 
This discussion has been debated ad infinitum here on these forums. I suggest you take the time to read over past discussions and their citations before you hang yourself out on yet another limb.

LOL.....is that your final answer?.....you really don't have a clue....do you? More shuffle and dodge noted.
 
Now Clownboy......lets see if you can answer at least one of the two easier questions

1. Does the Chief Justice have any more power/authority than any of the other Justices?

2. How does one become a Chief Justice.


Or are we just going to see more shuffle and dodge?

And here you are, try to play the teacher tactic and fail miserably only to try it again expecting a different result. :lamo

Sorry, I don't trust your lack of knowledge on the subject and refuse to allow you to guide me through your flawed thought process.
 
And here you are, try to play the teacher tactic and fail miserably only to try it again expecting a different result. :lamo

Sorry, I don't trust your lack of knowledge on the subject and refuse to allow you to guide me through your flawed thought process.


Just as I suspected........clownboys debating technique:

 
LOL.....is that your final answer?.....you really don't have a clue....do you? More shuffle and dodge noted.

Depends, how many times and in how many ways do I have to tell you straight out that your demonstrated lack of knowledge on this matter does nothing to encourage me to follow along your flawed train of thought?
 
And here you are, try to play the teacher tactic and fail miserably only to try it again expecting a different result. :lamo

Sorry, I don't trust your lack of knowledge on the subject and refuse to allow you to guide me through your flawed thought process.


Here......once again....CLownboy.....let me educate you:

1. The opinion of the Chief Justice has no more weight or sway than any of the other justices. Their vote and opinion means no more. They simply preside of the proceedings

2. A person doesn't become chief justice because they have more seniority or are smarter than the other justices.....they become chief justice only because the sitting chief justice dies or retires and then whoever the sitting President is, can nominate any of the remaining or the new Justice as the Chief Justice. In fact, as you probably don't know.....Justice Roberts became Chief Justice his first day on the job because GWB nominated him for that position and he was confirmed by the senate.
 
Just as I suspected........clownboys debating technique:

Expected response -delusional comments aimed at disparaging me rather than educating yourself or supporting any of your arguments. Par for the course. :roll:
 
Depends, how many times and in how many ways do I have to tell you straight out that your demonstrated lack of knowledge on this matter does nothing to encourage me to follow along your flawed train of thought?

LOL.....who answered the questions....and who shuffled, dodged and danced around? Doh!
 
Here......once again....CLownboy.....let me educate you:

1. The opinion of the Chief Justice has no more weight or sway than any of the other justices. Their vote and opinion means no more. They simply preside of the proceedings

2. A person doesn't become chief justice because they have more seniority or are smarter than the other justices.....they become chief justice only because the sitting chief justice dies or retires and then whoever the sitting President is, can nominate any of the remaining or the new Justice as the Chief Justice. In fact, as you probably don't know.....Justice Roberts became Chief Justice his first day on the job because GWB nominated him for that position and he was confirmed by the senate.

Keep googling there, you'll eventually learn something. No need to just reprint you results here, most of us already know this, we're just waiting for you to catch up.
 
Expected response -delusional comments aimed at disparaging me rather than educating yourself or supporting any of your arguments. Par for the course. :roll:

Not disparaging you.....just disparaging your continual dodges and shuffles. I haven't seen you actually answer a question or support a position in over 15 pages here. At least if you wanna come to the table....bring something.
 
Keep googling there, you'll eventually learn something. No need to just reprint you results here, most of us already know this, we're just waiting for you to catch up.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's why you were so quick to answer and why a few pages back you were attempting to argue that Justice Roberts opinion is entitled to greater weight than any of the other justices.
 
LOL.....who answered the questions....and who shuffled, dodged and danced around? Doh!

You, answered questions of your own making, that right there was already comedy gold. Also you, who has been squirming around throwing spaghetti against the wall while we waited for any comment from you that might demonstrate you knew what you are talking about here. Still waiting.

Actually no, I'm not, don't have that kind of time left.
 
You, answered questions of your own making, that right there was already comedy gold. Also you, who has been squirming around throwing spaghetti against the wall while we waited for any comment from you that might demonstrate you knew what you are talking about here. Still waiting.

Actually no, I'm not, don't have that kind of time left.


Questions that you couldn't answer and have danced and dodged around for the past several pages. Get it a break dude.....you are out of your league when you take to this site and attempt to engage in conversations that you know nothing about.

Bottom line: Bigotry lost and America won.....this is the final nail in the coffin of the right-wing social agenda and you guys know it. The rest is just sour grapes and whining. Face it you lost.
 
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's why you were so quick to answer and why a few pages back you were attempting to argue that Justice Roberts opinion is entitled to greater weight than any of the other justices.

Hah! Who is the highest judicial officer in the country, is the chief officer for the federal courts, is head of the Judicial Conference and administers the US courts?
 
Questions that you couldn't answer and have danced and dodged around for the past several pages. Get it a break dude.....you are out of your league when you take to this site and attempt to engage in conversations that you know nothing about.

Bottom line: Bigotry lost and America won.....this is the final nail in the coffin of the right-wing social agenda and you guys know it. The rest is just sour grapes and whining. Face it you lost.

Hah! More hilarity.

And bottom line: We The People lost, and it has ****-all to do with homosexual marriage. We lost because our highest court finally came out with the operating truth - we are NOT a constitutional system. We didn't lose because of this one decision, it just became public knowledge with this decision.

That you fail to recognize that loss, because you got something out of it you so desired, speaks volumes.
 
More like Grant, Truman, Carter, Obama.

Seriously, you can't be that devoid of objectivity to recognize it. You have witnessed historical things in the last decade. I'm not comparing Obama to Lincoln, but I sometimes think about all the hatred that was thrown Lincoln's way during his day. Talk about not seeing the history that was in the making right before their eyes. And they had the privilege of seeing it firsthand. But they were blinded by their issues.
 
This too...

"They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not."

Thats a lovely attempt at "Appeal to Authority", but since this issue never came before the court... it wasn't considered.

The court has enough cases to handle on a regular basis without coming up with its own decisions without a case being presented by the people. Its not their job to come up with **** without a case before it.
 

Don't worry, your mom is correct. It first started being brought up in the 70s, though most mainstream people would not have heard of it. It took off in the 80s, which would end up with DOMA being passed in 1996 in response to the growing discussion of the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom