|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 11:05:23 GMT -5
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. Nature abhors a vaccuum. The other branches aren't going to sit idly by, while the do-nothing Congress does nothing. Their powers have not changed, they're just using them more in the absence of other action.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2015 11:23:49 GMT -5
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. The whole point of 3 branches and checks and balances is so there would be LESS done and only the important stuff would happen. America is supposed to be a country of a small government by the people not this leviathan.
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jun 30, 2015 11:52:38 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 I won't disagree that judges sometimes come up with the conclusion and figure out the legal reasoning behind it but there was really very little legal basis for any other decision on gay marriage premised on constitutional analysis. That's why the bulk of the dissents are empty of legal reasoning but full of political argument. Obergefell was a constitutional analysis of gay marriage bans and states refusing to acknowledge marriages licensed in other states. The fundamental rights analysis used by the court in Obergefell is eighty-nine years old. There was plenty of time to disagree that marriage is a fundamental right under the constitution or to eliminate the equal protection analysis before this case.
|
|
|
Post by JetBidi on Jun 30, 2015 12:04:19 GMT -5
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. SCOTUS didn't make a new law. They ruled that pre-existing state bans on gay marriage that were then challenged in court are unconstitutional. That's always been their job.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2015 12:46:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 13:38:01 GMT -5
If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage: This decision does not affect you in any way. If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong: This decision does not affect you in any way. That may be true (and I don't know if the non-existent law provides for religious exemptions) but if you are a businessperson with religious objections you can't "discriminate" by not providing your business to a gay couple.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 13:38:29 GMT -5
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. SCOTUS didn't make a new law. They ruled that pre-existing state bans on gay marriage that were then challenged in court are unconstitutional. That's always been their job. everyone screaming in wild hysteria "It's the Law of the Land". No, it's not, there's no law, there's a "ruling"
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jun 30, 2015 13:44:57 GMT -5
If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage: This decision does not affect you in any way. If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong: This decision does not affect you in any way. That may be true (and I don't know if the non-existent law provides for religious exemptions) but if you are a businessperson with religious objections you can't "discriminate" by not providing your business to a gay couple. Religious institutions and their leaders cannot be required to perform any religious ceremony that opposes their sincerely held religious beliefs. Businesses may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation where laws prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations, including businesses open to the public, on that basis are not in effect. There are still many places in this country where such anti-discrimination laws do not exist.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 13:46:13 GMT -5
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. Getting Iran to agree to limit its nuclear weapons is a good thing
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 13:47:53 GMT -5
That may be true (and I don't know if the non-existent law provides for religious exemptions) but if you are a businessperson with religious objections you can't "discriminate" by not providing your business to a gay couple. Religious institutions and their leaders cannot be required to perform any religious ceremony that opposes their sincerely held religious beliefs. Businesses may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation where laws prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations, including businesses open to the public, on that basis are not in effect. There are still many places in this country where such anti-discrimination laws do not exist. Sure, like that has any significance in practical terms. Where's that, in three tiny towns in Alabama and Maine? Yeah that's why they keep talking about how the baker has to sell a gay couple a wedding cake, or the photographer cannot refuse to take pictures at their wedding, he has no choice
|
|
|
Post by 32Green on Jun 30, 2015 13:51:16 GMT -5
If you are a heterosexual with a bullet in his head who may or may not actually live in Chicago and is seeking another heterosexual with a bullet in his head who may or may not live in Chicago, to marry... but not bang:
This decision will not affect you. Possibly.
-
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 14:08:54 GMT -5
And as far as Trades statement about big gov,t interfering in our lives, I just got an Amber alert message about some Dodge Durango. Wtf did AT&T give my phone number to law enforcement agencies? It's not saved in messages it was just a big box that crowded out teh hampur. I have no control over this?
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jun 30, 2015 14:24:35 GMT -5
Religious institutions and their leaders cannot be required to perform any religious ceremony that opposes their sincerely held religious beliefs. Businesses may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation where laws prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations, including businesses open to the public, on that basis are not in effect. There are still many places in this country where such anti-discrimination laws do not exist. Sure, like that has any significance in practical terms. Where's that, in three tiny towns in Alabama and Maine? Yeah that's why they keep talking about how the baker has to sell a gay couple a wedding cake, or the photographer cannot refuse to take pictures at their wedding, he has no choice Plenty of places here in texas you are free to hate the gays. The practical significance is that there is no remedy for discrimination unless the law has created one. If your state or town has enacted such a remedy then you are always free to take to the political process and advocate a change.
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jun 30, 2015 14:25:38 GMT -5
And as far as Trades statement about big gov,t interfering in our lives, I just got an Amber alert message about some Dodge Durango. Wtf did AT&T give my phone number to law enforcement agencies? It's not saved in messages it was just a big box that crowded out teh hampur. I have no control over this? AT&T sends the message out to all phones that have those amber alerts activated. Most phones are set to default to allow them but you can turn them off in your settings.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jun 30, 2015 14:27:12 GMT -5
Sure, like that has any significance in practical terms. Where's that, in three tiny towns in Alabama and Maine? Yeah that's why they keep talking about how the baker has to sell a gay couple a wedding cake, or the photographer cannot refuse to take pictures at their wedding, he has no choice Plenty of places here in texas you are free to hate the gays. The practical significance is that there is no remedy for discrimination unless the law has created one. If your state or town has enacted such a remedy then you are always free to take to the political process and advocate a change. ph Texas, lol, how did I forget that one
|
|