Started By
Message
re: TOS: Where is all the love for the SCOTUS decision?
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:35 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:35 pm to Dawg in Beaumont
To that, I would just say that you have to have a constitutional reason to alter the default position of marriage. Valid arguments can be mustered against polygamy. Primarily it would be the much increased likelihood of negative results, including state support, foreseeable issues resulting from divorce, states having to raise kids, etc. All the Court needs is convincing argument against. I think that is much easier to make against polygamy than it is same sex marriage.
1
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:37 pm to VoxDawg
Thanks, Vox.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 2:30 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
Very reasoned post...thanks for the insight.
I personally agree that gays should be able to marry. But also agree with the dissents on this case for many of the reasons they cover - no need to repeat that here - but I will offer the following by Roberts:
Also there's the fear of unintended consequences. Let's hope that legislation is crafted (what a novel thought) after this ruling to cover some of the fears mentioned in this thread (plural marriage, churches being compelled to comply, etc.).
I personally agree that gays should be able to marry. But also agree with the dissents on this case for many of the reasons they cover - no need to repeat that here - but I will offer the following by Roberts:
quote:
But a Justice’s commission does not confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the democratic process. Respecting that understanding requires the Court to be guided by law, not any particularschool of social thought.
Also there's the fear of unintended consequences. Let's hope that legislation is crafted (what a novel thought) after this ruling to cover some of the fears mentioned in this thread (plural marriage, churches being compelled to comply, etc.).
Posted on 6/30/15 at 2:54 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
quote:
Oh, and the "unelected officials" thing...that was exactly what was contemplated in the Constitution. It is spelled out pretty clearly there.
So, you refer us to the clearly spelled out wording of the Constitution in order to understand the framers reasoning behind the appointment of Supreme Court justices……but, you want us to ignore and accept it when these unelected supreme deities do the exact opposite?
Shouldn’t the robed supreme beings have to refer to the letter of the law and a strict construction of the Constitution also?. Instead of twisting and contorting and interpreting the lawyerly wording of it in the most absurd dishonest and illogical ways so that they can come to conclusions based on their political views……… like they have done in this case. And hundreds and hundreds of others.
This whole system today is a perverted unrecognizable version of the original intent. The supreme court wasn’t designed to be defacto law-makers or arbiters of final judgements on social issues etc.
Again though. This is a huge victory for big government and busy body control-freak logic. Governments shouldn't be involved in the licensing of anything. Especially marriages. Yet here you have both sides of the gay marriage debate trying to use the power of government to enforce their agenda. No shocker, but as usual, things continue to move in the wrong direction......
Posted on 6/30/15 at 3:13 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Posted on 6/30/15 at 3:48 pm to Jefferson Dawg
If SCOTUS is tasked with the job of determining the constitutionality of laws, aren't they then de facto lawmakers in the sense that by striking down a law, they are creating law themselves?
If SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution, isn't it then the result that those interpretations become law and/or effect/nullify existing laws?
All I am saying is that, regardless of whether you agree with their interpretations of the Constitution (of which there are many schools/approaches of doing, strict construction being one of many), by giving SCOTUS this responsibility, they have to make decisions as the propriety of certain laws and interpret the Constitution and, as a result, be lawmakers to a certain extent. But they can only do this in the context of what issue/law/constitutional right is brought before them. For the record, I thought interpreting the ACA penalty provision as a tax was ridiculous when the law itself refers to it as a penalty. There is a fine line to walk between judicial activism and fulfilling their role under the Constitution.
They are to a certain extent constrained by what the issue is before them. At issue wasn't whether the government should be involved in marriage. They had to accept this fact as well as that with this status came certain benefits. They had to rule on the gay marriage issue with these things in mind.
Now whether the government has the authority to license/sanction marriages to begin with would be an interesting case.
If SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution, isn't it then the result that those interpretations become law and/or effect/nullify existing laws?
All I am saying is that, regardless of whether you agree with their interpretations of the Constitution (of which there are many schools/approaches of doing, strict construction being one of many), by giving SCOTUS this responsibility, they have to make decisions as the propriety of certain laws and interpret the Constitution and, as a result, be lawmakers to a certain extent. But they can only do this in the context of what issue/law/constitutional right is brought before them. For the record, I thought interpreting the ACA penalty provision as a tax was ridiculous when the law itself refers to it as a penalty. There is a fine line to walk between judicial activism and fulfilling their role under the Constitution.
They are to a certain extent constrained by what the issue is before them. At issue wasn't whether the government should be involved in marriage. They had to accept this fact as well as that with this status came certain benefits. They had to rule on the gay marriage issue with these things in mind.
Now whether the government has the authority to license/sanction marriages to begin with would be an interesting case.
This post was edited on 6/30/15 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 6/30/15 at 5:26 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
quote:
If SCOTUS is tasked with the job of determining the constitutionality of laws, aren't they then de facto lawmakers
In a way, but you’re missing the point.
I'm talking about federal judges scoffing at a strict interpretation of the letter of the law and, instead, stretching and distorting it through sketchy interpretations…. in order to decide cases based on their own political views…
This is not supreme court judges determining the constitutionality of laws, it is the american people being governed by a handful of people in robes that they did not elect and that they can not remove from office!! This is the opposite of the original intent of the federal judiciary in the constitution. This is tyranny.
Now if the politicians can’t get their way at the ballot box, then they can just find a way to take it to the federal courts and maybe have their political appointees wave their magic wands to get it done for them.
This is what you get when you destroy State's Rights and leave the federal government as the final arbiter of the limits of ITS OWN powers. The fox guarding the hen hhouse.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 5:38 pm to Jefferson Dawg
U mad bro?
Posted on 6/30/15 at 8:10 pm to deeprig9
Posted on 6/30/15 at 10:31 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
But yours is an irrelevant argument. In the wrong thread.
The argument here is about the tyranny of five unelected political appointees subverting the constitution and redefining marriage for all 50 states.
If you agree that these supreme beings in robes did the right thing ....then what does this say about you?
I'll tell you what it says... It says that you endorse big government and all of its lawlessness and tyranny. It says that you grovel to the superiority of government "wisdom " and condone them making decisions they have no business making in the first place. And it says that you are part of the problem
Lies, damn lies!
Page 4 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News