Started By
Message
re: TN judge refuses to grant divorce - refers to USSC gay marriage ruling as reason
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:59 pm to Alahunter
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:59 pm to Alahunter
quote:
while overrule may have been an incorrect term, they have made rulings that conflicted with previous ones, essentially rendering them obsolete.
Exactly.
quote:
It was a 5-4 vote. It's possible that it was an incorrect ruling that will be nullified in the future at some point.
Don't bet on it. A contradictory ruling would have implications to interracial marriage and other dp/ep rulings made by the court almost certainly. Plus there's no likely public opinion swing the other way coming.
Very well said in your closing paragraph. I agree.
Like I said earlier, reasonable folks can and do disagree over how the 14th is applied over the 10th here. It's also a discussion that needs to happen every time one of these questions comes up. I see and understand your states rights argument. I just personally believe this to be a consistent application of the 14th amendment in both spirit and previous application.
2
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:59 pm to The Spleen
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the power of Congress to enact child labor laws. The Court held regulation of child labor in purely internal (to a single state) manufacturing, the products of which may never enter interstate commerce, to be beyond the power of Congress, distinguishing the Lottery line of cases, which concerned Congressional regulation of harms (e.g. interstate sale of lottery tickets) that required the use of interstate commerce
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Wiki... shows 123 times that the court overruled existing rulings. Granted, I haven't researched a single one and I'm no legal scholar either. lol
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Wiki... shows 123 times that the court overruled existing rulings. Granted, I haven't researched a single one and I'm no legal scholar either. lol
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:03 pm to Duke
quote:
A contradictory ruling would have implications to interracial marriage and other dp/ep rulings made by the court almost certainly. Plus there's no likely public opinion swing the other way coming.
The ruling as it stands, would grant incestuous marriages legal standing. Brother/brother, sister/sister.. polygamy.. etc.
quote:
I just personally believe this to be a consistent application of the 14th amendment in both spirit and previous application.
And I can understand why you do. I think in the end, most things we disagree on, tend to be matters of trying to get to the same place through a different route, with few just being outright differences in moral compasses or issues, if you will. Never anything wrong with agreeing to disagree.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:07 pm to Alahunter
The "overrule" was likely claiming it is interstate commerce. If it's not, the state can decide but since all manufacturing and farming is interstate commerce the commerce clause applies.
I read the blurbs, so I could be wrong.
I do know SCOTUS likes to play fast and loose with interstate commerce. Say you want to grow a marijuana plant for your personal consumption? IC.
Why?
You know, because by growing it yourself you are not participating in the interstate black market. Thus by not participating you are having an effect on the market and, therefore, participating in the interstate black market.
I read the blurbs, so I could be wrong.
I do know SCOTUS likes to play fast and loose with interstate commerce. Say you want to grow a marijuana plant for your personal consumption? IC.
Why?
You know, because by growing it yourself you are not participating in the interstate black market. Thus by not participating you are having an effect on the market and, therefore, participating in the interstate black market.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:13 pm to Alahunter
quote:
The ruling as it stands, would grant incestuous marriages legal standing. Brother/brother, sister/sister.. polygamy.. etc.
Yes it certainly does. Incest would be easier to work around as the state has a compelling reason not to allow it. Polygamy though, I'm not sure there's a work around. If there is though, SCOTUS will find it.
quote:
And I can understand why you do. I think in the end, most things we disagree on, tend to be matters of trying to get to the same place through a different route, with few just being outright differences in moral compasses or issues, if you will. Never anything wrong with agreeing to disagree.
It's why I don't mind a discussion with you. We tend to discuss method, and that's an interesting discussion. I'm almost an engineer. I like looking at systems.
Most of the time these discussions are the tedious arguments over semantics to prove someone wrong.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:20 pm to Duke
quote:
Incest would be easier to work around as the state has a compelling reason not to allow it
What would it be? Assuming it's same sex? Certainly not for the health of a child, as they couldn't procreate.
quote:
Most of the time these discussions are the tedious arguments over semantics to prove someone wrong.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:27 pm to Alahunter
quote:
What would it be? Assuming it's same sex?
A really really narrow ruling.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 4:03 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Marriage ought to be a religious event only.
It predates religion entirely and was purely secular before religion came along and co-opted it entirely.
The butthurt you and other social conservatives have over two consensual adults enjoying their civil rights beyond the reach of ignorant lawmakers and ignorant masses is pathetic. Get over it.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 4:20 pm to Sentrius
quote:
It predates religion entirely and was purely secular before religion came along and co-opted it entirely
Not really. The oldest written law dates back to the Code of Ur Nammu, older than Hammurabi. The Sumerians based their laws and artifacts have been found showing their Kings receiving laws from the Babylonian sun God Shamash.
I can also tell you didn't read the thread through.
Posted on 9/4/15 at 8:08 am to Alahunter
Awesome. I take back all the bad things I've said about Tennessee.
Well, most of them anyway.
Well, most of them anyway.
Posted on 9/4/15 at 10:41 am to Alahunter
Throw his arse in jail too.
Posted on 9/4/15 at 10:42 am to Alahunter
The federal government just needs to get in the civil union business and allow tax breaks and 90% of the outcry would go away.
Also, when is the next picture thread Alahunter. Its been a while.
Also, when is the next picture thread Alahunter. Its been a while.
Posted on 9/4/15 at 3:47 pm to Duke
Duke are right that the USSC just defined marriage as not being limited to heterosexuals but homo's as well. And just b/c a state can't 'define' what marriage is, that doesn't mean they can't go through with marriages/divorces as the USSC already 'defined' marriage for them.
The religious nuts are trying their hardest to spin this for their side, but when in fact heterosexuals have ruined the meaning and sanctity of marriage. 2 people of the same sex getting married has no affect on anyone's else lives, so really you guys can go frick yourselves if you don't like freedom. Plus marriage isn't only for religious folk, so that argument has been proven false.
The religious nuts are trying their hardest to spin this for their side, but when in fact heterosexuals have ruined the meaning and sanctity of marriage. 2 people of the same sex getting married has no affect on anyone's else lives, so really you guys can go frick yourselves if you don't like freedom. Plus marriage isn't only for religious folk, so that argument has been proven false.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News