|
Post by JetBidi on Jun 30, 2015 0:47:14 GMT -5
This ruling was outside of the purview of the SCOTUS and yet they took it upon themselves. How did you come to that conclusion? The litigants appealed the Sixth Circuit's opinion on two constitutional issues (equal protection and full faith & credit.) I was wondering the same thing. Completely appropriate for the SCOTUS to take on and rule on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Raoul Duke on Jun 30, 2015 2:34:05 GMT -5
In their decision the SCOTUS made sure to clearly state that couples have the right to marry. So that is how they will get around the polygamy thing. I dont know if I would ever want more than one wife. A side piece or two is good. I don't even really want one wife. I love my wife and my our baby but i wish we had a duplex and just hung out here and there. I would marry a guy if no sex was involved and we just shared our resources went to jets games, europe, switched cars week to week. Like a best friend with insurance and great financial benefits. Fucking credit score off the charts. Buying real estate, fixing up outdated deplorable shit, then flipping it turning profits. Heading to vegas. For sure Id marry me if i met a me We'd all be full blown homos with our best friends if no sex was involved.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 30, 2015 5:54:37 GMT -5
How did you come to that conclusion? The litigants appealed the Sixth Circuit's opinion on two constitutional issues (equal protection and full faith & credit.) I was wondering the same thing. Completely appropriate for the SCOTUS to take on and rule on this issue. Its a stretch at best. Even in their argument the plaintiffs claimed it was a right implied by the Constitution. Substantive due process cases are always controversial. Just like 2nd amendment cases b.c a lot is left up to interpretation and political views skew interpretation. I am all for equal protection under the law. But I also recognize that many people do consider it marriage. I dont like government involved in marriage or religion and vice versa but it seems they bleed into one another whenever it is convenient. I also dont think the bench is a place for activism. I think Roberts summed it up pretty well:
|
|
|
Post by Fishooked on Jun 30, 2015 6:31:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Jun 30, 2015 6:58:05 GMT -5
Welcome to the club.
|
|
|
Post by Raoul Duke on Jun 30, 2015 7:13:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fishooked on Jun 30, 2015 7:33:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Jun 30, 2015 7:35:53 GMT -5
If, you're thinking about a chick bent over a washing machine saying "omg what are you doing to me", no.
If you're thinking about choreography and a mans hairy balls in your mouth, yes.
What if the chick bent over was Transgender complete with the balls cut off and vagina created. But i still chose the backdoor is it ghey then? if you have to ask? hell yeah
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jun 30, 2015 9:01:42 GMT -5
How about TPP anyone following this Wtf i have to go resurrect the fucking politics forum. The world is burning. Bing needs to get more political on twitter. Note to self Marriage Equality and the Confederate Flag are conveniently distracting the masses from Congress and Obama on TPP and the Supreme Court on Obamacare.... "Look over there, a flag!" The economy and health care are going to impact us a hell of a lot more than the others. Rand Paul had an interesting opinion piece in Time this week about getting govt out of the business of marriage completely... which is an idea with some merit IMO.
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jun 30, 2015 9:36:00 GMT -5
I was wondering the same thing. Completely appropriate for the SCOTUS to take on and rule on this issue. Its a stretch at best. Even in their argument the plaintiffs claimed it was a right implied by the Constitution. Substantive due process cases are always controversial. Just like 2nd amendment cases b.c a lot is left up to interpretation and political views skew interpretation. I am all for equal protection under the law. But I also recognize that many people do consider it marriage. I dont like government involved in marriage or religion and vice versa but it seems they bleed into one another whenever it is convenient. I also dont think the bench is a place for activism. I think Roberts summed it up pretty well: There's no stretch. The determination that marriage was a fundamental right stretches back to the 1920s ( Griswald). And by marriage we are talking about marriage as the legal institution, not the religious institution of marriage as a covenant before one's creator. Controversy does not determine whether it is appropriate for SCOTUS to hear the case. Controversy is why SCOTUS hears a case. Most cases SCOTUS agrees to hear are cases where there is a split among the circuits on an issue of law or the case deals with an issue of significant constitutional interpretation. Here, there were two core issues of constitutional interpretation -- equal protection and full faith & credit. There is hardly a better reason for SCOTUS to resolve a controversy of law. Jurisdiction to hear cases by SCOTUS is determined by the constitution and the jurisdictional statutes enacted by Congress. SCOTUS did not overstep its jurisdiction by hearing the case. The dissents in Obergefell represent just awful legal analysis. Roberts comes closest to making a serious legal argument but his entire dissent can be summed up as an erroneously narrow view of the history of marriage and an assertion that gay marriage is not traditional so the fundamental right argument doesn't apply. The most glaring problem with the dissent is that if you agree with Roberts then you have to disagree with Loving which banned interracial marriages because those types of marriages were just as offensive and considered just as destructive to the institution of marriage at that time as people consider gay marriage today. Further, if you believe states should have the power to determine who you can marry solely on the basis of tradition or whether some people think it's icky then you not only open a wide door for the government to determine how you structure your family but a wide door for the government to get back involved with any number of private affairs for which many people believe the government has no business regulating.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 30, 2015 10:45:44 GMT -5
How about TPP anyone following this Wtf i have to go resurrect the fucking politics forum. The world is burning. Bing needs to get more political on twitter. Note to self Marriage Equality and the Confederate Flag are conveniently distracting the masses from Congress and Obama on TPP and the Supreme Court on Obamacare.... "Look over there, a flag!" The economy and health care are going to impact us a hell of a lot more than the others. Rand Paul had an interesting opinion piece in Time this week about getting govt out of the business of marriage completely... which is an idea with some merit IMO. Lets not forget the nuclear deal with Iran.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 10:46:17 GMT -5
Its a stretch at best. Even in their argument the plaintiffs claimed it was a right implied by the Constitution. Substantive due process cases are always controversial. Just like 2nd amendment cases b.c a lot is left up to interpretation and political views skew interpretation. I am all for equal protection under the law. But I also recognize that many people do consider it marriage. I dont like government involved in marriage or religion and vice versa but it seems they bleed into one another whenever it is convenient. I also dont think the bench is a place for activism. I think Roberts summed it up pretty well: There's no stretch. The determination that marriage was a fundamental right stretches back to the 1920s ( Griswald). And by marriage we are talking about marriage as the legal institution, not the religious institution of marriage as a covenant before one's creator. Controversy does not determine whether it is appropriate for SCOTUS to hear the case. Controversy is why SCOTUS hears a case. Most cases SCOTUS agrees to hear are cases where there is a split among the circuits on an issue of law or the case deals with an issue of significant constitutional interpretation. Here, there were two core issues of constitutional interpretation -- equal protection and full faith & credit. There is hardly a better reason for SCOTUS to resolve a controversy of law. Jurisdiction to hear cases by SCOTUS is determined by the constitution and the jurisdictional statutes enacted by Congress. SCOTUS did not overstep its jurisdiction by hearing the case. The dissents in Obergefell represent just awful legal analysis. Roberts comes closest to making a serious legal argument but his entire dissent can be summed up as an erroneously narrow view of the history of marriage and an assertion that gay marriage is not traditional so the fundamental right argument doesn't apply. The most glaring problem with the dissent is that if you agree with Roberts then you have to disagree with Loving which banned interracial marriages because those types of marriages were just as offensive and considered just as destructive to the institution of marriage at that time as people consider gay marriage today. Further, if you believe states should have the power to determine who you can marry solely on the basis of tradition or whether some people think it's icky then you not only open a wide door for the government to determine how you structure your family but a wide door for the government to get back involved with any number of private affairs for which many people believe the government has no business regulating. The SCOTUS makes their decision first then works backwards to craft an argument to rationalize it. They are totally on the popular social opinion bandwagon with this. They are supposed to determine if laws are constitutional, not write them. The way it's supposed to work is the legislative and executive branches are supposed to write a law and the nine ninnies decide if it's constitutional. At least in the Obamacare rulings they were determining whether that law was constitutional, as much as they worked backwards to rationalize it. And why are they arguing whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not? Nobody asked them that, they were asked whether a guy suffering for 40 minutes before finally dying is cruel and unusual. Hello how is that even a question? Yet Assole Scalia says "I believe capital punishment is a deterrent to crime"? Hello, who cares what you "believe". How about using the studies if in fact there is a reason to bring in that argument at all. And for all the hype that Roberts was supposed to be the most brilliant legal genius in the history of this country he's writing some pretty shoddy arguments. I really hate the SCOTUS
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 30, 2015 10:51:23 GMT -5
Its a stretch at best. Even in their argument the plaintiffs claimed it was a right implied by the Constitution. Substantive due process cases are always controversial. Just like 2nd amendment cases b.c a lot is left up to interpretation and political views skew interpretation. I am all for equal protection under the law. But I also recognize that many people do consider it marriage. I dont like government involved in marriage or religion and vice versa but it seems they bleed into one another whenever it is convenient. I also dont think the bench is a place for activism. I think Roberts summed it up pretty well: There's no stretch. The determination that marriage was a fundamental right stretches back to the 1920s ( Griswald). And by marriage we are talking about marriage as the legal institution, not the religious institution of marriage as a covenant before one's creator. Controversy does not determine whether it is appropriate for SCOTUS to hear the case. Controversy is why SCOTUS hears a case. Most cases SCOTUS agrees to hear are cases where there is a split among the circuits on an issue of law or the case deals with an issue of significant constitutional interpretation. Here, there were two core issues of constitutional interpretation -- equal protection and full faith & credit. There is hardly a better reason for SCOTUS to resolve a controversy of law. Jurisdiction to hear cases by SCOTUS is determined by the constitution and the jurisdictional statutes enacted by Congress. SCOTUS did not overstep its jurisdiction by hearing the case. The dissents in Obergefell represent just awful legal analysis. Roberts comes closest to making a serious legal argument but his entire dissent can be summed up as an erroneously narrow view of the history of marriage and an assertion that gay marriage is not traditional so the fundamental right argument doesn't apply. The most glaring problem with the dissent is that if you agree with Roberts then you have to disagree with Loving which banned interracial marriages because those types of marriages were just as offensive and considered just as destructive to the institution of marriage at that time as people consider gay marriage today. Further, if you believe states should have the power to determine who you can marry solely on the basis of tradition or whether some people think it's icky then you not only open a wide door for the government to determine how you structure your family but a wide door for the government to get back involved with any number of private affairs for which many people believe the government has no business regulating. I am just going to have to respectfully disagree as I do with you on many things, lol. But just to add one more thing, I dont want the states deciding either, I just thinkt hat would be the lesser of two evils. I want the people to decide. Lets put it on the ballot and be done with it. IMO that is the best way. The power in this country is becoming increasingly centralized. I dont want to pollute the Hampur with anymore of this shit. We can do it in the politics forum.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 30, 2015 10:54:28 GMT -5
There's no stretch. The determination that marriage was a fundamental right stretches back to the 1920s ( Griswald). And by marriage we are talking about marriage as the legal institution, not the religious institution of marriage as a covenant before one's creator. Controversy does not determine whether it is appropriate for SCOTUS to hear the case. Controversy is why SCOTUS hears a case. Most cases SCOTUS agrees to hear are cases where there is a split among the circuits on an issue of law or the case deals with an issue of significant constitutional interpretation. Here, there were two core issues of constitutional interpretation -- equal protection and full faith & credit. There is hardly a better reason for SCOTUS to resolve a controversy of law. Jurisdiction to hear cases by SCOTUS is determined by the constitution and the jurisdictional statutes enacted by Congress. SCOTUS did not overstep its jurisdiction by hearing the case. The dissents in Obergefell represent just awful legal analysis. Roberts comes closest to making a serious legal argument but his entire dissent can be summed up as an erroneously narrow view of the history of marriage and an assertion that gay marriage is not traditional so the fundamental right argument doesn't apply. The most glaring problem with the dissent is that if you agree with Roberts then you have to disagree with Loving which banned interracial marriages because those types of marriages were just as offensive and considered just as destructive to the institution of marriage at that time as people consider gay marriage today. Further, if you believe states should have the power to determine who you can marry solely on the basis of tradition or whether some people think it's icky then you not only open a wide door for the government to determine how you structure your family but a wide door for the government to get back involved with any number of private affairs for which many people believe the government has no business regulating. The SCOTUS makes their decision first then works backwards to craft an argument to rationalize it. They are totally on the popular social opinion bandwagon with this. They are supposed to determine if laws are constitutional, not write them. The way it's supposed to work is the legislative and executive branches are supposed to write a law and the nine ninnies decide if it's constitutional. At least in the Obamacare rulings they were determining whether that law was constitutional, as much as they worked backwards to rationalize it. And why are they arguing whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not? Nobody asked them that, they were asked whether a guy suffering for 40 minutes before finally dying is cruel and unusual. Hello how is that even a question? Yet Assole Scalia says "I believe capital punishment is a deterrent to crime"? Hello, who cares what you "believe". How about using the studies if in fact there is a reason to bring in that argument at all. And for all the hype that Roberts was supposed to be the most brilliant legal genius in the history of this country he's writing some pretty shoddy arguments. I really hate the SCOTUS The executive and judicial branches have become too powerful. I dont care about the so-called "do nothing" Congress. We are better off when the idiots in Washington do less.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 10:56:03 GMT -5
I am just going to have to respectfully disagree as I do with you on many things, lol. But just to add one more thing, I dont want the states deciding either, I just thinkt hat would be the lesser of two evils. I want the people to decide. Lets put it on the ballot and be done with it. IMO that is the best way. The power in this country is becoming increasingly centralized. I dont want to pollute the Hampur with anymore of this shit. We can do it in the politics forum. You can put things on a ballot for individual states but for the country you have to go through the legislative process(ie house, senate, executive) and SCOTUS jumped ahead of that process and made it a "mute" point
|
|