Some pundits even on the left are speculating that the decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA could be split. What the fuck? I expect this crap from Fucked News, but I have to wonder what year it is when even the left is saying this?
If this court does the right thing it should be a 9 to nothing vote striking down ALL institutionalized homophobia allowing ALL states to legalize same sex marriage.
Quote from: "Brian37"...
If this court does the right thing...
What do you think the chances are of this?
It's such a clear and VERY SIMPLE civil rights issue.. What are the oppositions take??.. based on religion??.. Can't make laws with respect to religion.. How much more fucking simple does it get??
Quote from: "mnmelt"It's such a clear and VERY SIMPLE civil rights issue.. What are the oppositions take??.. based on religion??.. Can't make laws with respect to religion.. How much more fucking simple does it get??
Thank you. They need to legalize same sex marriage or get the fuck out of the institution all together. But what government cannot do is say "Some are more equal than others".
Same fucking crap was argued over inter racial marriage. If this court has any fucking balls at all, the right thing will be 9 to nothing and the bigots will lose.
Quote from: "moog"Quote from: "Brian37"...
If this court does the right thing...
What do you think the chances are of this?
I think it will be a split decision unfortunately. The best case will be both will be ruled unconstitutional with a 5-4 or 6-3 decision. I could see that happening. But even with all the fancy legal ease they will use, if it is more split supporting states rights then what it ultimately would amount to is a Court afraid of starting a civil war.
It should be unanimous though. How many minorities in our country's history have to go through this before we understand the Constitution?
Quote from: "mnmelt"It's such a clear and VERY SIMPLE civil rights issue.. What are the oppositions take??.. based on religion??.. Can't make laws with respect to religion.. How much more fucking simple does it get??
I remember a few years ago when the right wing was continually bashing the Supreme Court for "making law" rather than upholding it. Don't hear that so much anymore since so many of the Supreme Court decisions have gone their way.
Quote from: "moog"Quote from: "Brian37"...
If this court does the right thing...
What do you think the chances are of this?
Very good actually. EVEN if everyone in the papers and news think there's only going to be some half ass solution, consider just the fact that the court even took up this case in the first place. They very easily could have pussied out and just deferd the whole case to the 9th's decision that would have only applied to California, letting the rest of the country slowly legalize marriage state by state. The fact they took the case up more than likely means enough of the justices want to settle the issue once and for all.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "moog"Quote from: "Brian37"...
If this court does the right thing...
What do you think the chances are of this?
Very good actually. EVEN if everyone in the papers and news think there's only going to be some half ass solution, consider just the fact that the court even took up this case in the first place. They very easily could have pussied out and just deferd the whole case to the 9th's decision that would have only applied to California, letting the rest of the country slowly legalize marriage state by state. The fact they took the case up more than likely means enough of the justices want to settle the issue once and for all.
That's basically what I wrote in the thread in politics. Taking both cases at the same time, then copping out would kill the current court's credibility. I think the justices know it's time to make a real decision. I'm sure they're aware that with a definitive decision this will be the biggest landmark case since the 60's, one that will be studied in history classes. Hopefully, they aren't stupid enough to end up on the wrong side of history. Win or lose, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Public opinion has swayed faster in the past 5-10 years on this issue than any issue I've ever seen. A dozen states are expected to pass same sex marriage laws in the next year or so.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Public opinion has swayed faster in the past 5-10 years on this issue than any issue I've ever seen. A dozen states are expected to pass same sex marriage laws in the next year or so.
I agree. I think it's unusual to see public opinion change so much. So much of the time, public opinion just reflects a ideological even split between Republicans and Democrats. When public opinion changes so fast, I tend to see the issue as uniquely transcending political ideology. Why is it that this happens with the gay issue? Is it that DOMA and Prop 8 are so blatantly discriminatory that people who might be only half awake actually notice the unfairness? Or is there some other dynamic at play?
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"That's basically what I wrote in the thread in politics. Taking both cases at the same time, then copping out would kill the current court's credibility. I think the justices know it's time to make a real decision. I'm sure they're aware that with a definitive decision this will be the biggest landmark case since the 60's, one that will be studied in history classes. Hopefully, they aren't stupid enough to end up on the wrong side of history. Win or lose, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Public opinion has swayed faster in the past 5-10 years on this issue than any issue I've ever seen. A dozen states are expected to pass same sex marriage laws in the next year or so.
I was talking more about the prop 8 case than the DOMA one, but I would have to agree with that as well. Plus this whole nonsense trying to compare the prop 8 case to Roe vs Wade is complete hogwash. Ginsburgh and the rest of the justices(hopefully at least) realize the prop 8 case is completely different not only in substance, but that the debate and tone that goes with it as well. I just can't see people going on bloody rampages and bombing places over gay people getting married. There is no chance in hell anymore of there being a federal constitutional amendment over gay marriage either. The most likely thing you might see is a few individual states try getting rid of marriage altogether, and that is just laughable as well. The chaos from that alone would be be more than enough to dissuade all but the most hardcore nutjobs. And even if that somehow happened, the political backlash and anger that would follow would quickly put a stop to that.
QuoteIf this court does the right thing it should be a 9 to nothing vote
You do know that Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts are still on the court, right?
Quote from: "Minimalist"QuoteIf this court does the right thing it should be a 9 to nothing vote
You do know that Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts are still on the court, right?
Don't count out Thomas on this one just yet. I have a sneaking suspicion that his vote might surprise a few people.
Even if gays win these cases, I will still be appalled if it isn't a unanimous decision.
Quote from: "SGOS"Even if gays win these cases, I will still be appalled if it isn't a unanimous decision.
I would be absolutely stunned if it is a unanimous decision or even a significant majority, though I agree that it should. An awful lot of newsworthy decisiosn in recent years have been 5-4 along "party" lines.
//https://soundcloud.com/brianries/scotus-audio-hollingsworth-v
//http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf
Links to audio and pdf of the court transcript if anyone is interested
In general, judicial restraint -a deference to legislative bodies or referendums- has not been the hallmark of the Court over the past ten or fifteen years. I think that bodes well for overturning DOMA and Prop 8. The four justices appointed by Democrats-Ginsburg,Breyer,Soto, and Kagan just need one moderate/conservative to side with them as I see all four of those as highly likely to overturn both policies. Federalism issues often bring conservatives to the state supremacy side and that could do the trick. The other interesting constitutional issue involves the level of scrutiny which may be attached to equal protection(14th Amend,) claims. If the Court jacks the burden up to a heightened level, this issue is rolling down hill rapidly.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "SGOS"Even if gays win these cases, I will still be appalled if it isn't a unanimous decision.
I would be absolutely stunned if it is a unanimous decision or even a significant majority, though I agree that it should. An awful lot of newsworthy decisiosn in recent years have been 5-4 along "party" lines.
For many years, I was under the impression that the Supreme Court was the one branch of government that was impartial. But it's obvious that it's just like the other two branches. I may not have been paying enough attention in the past, but I still wonder sometimes if the court has changed, or if it's just because I'm more aware.
Quote from: "PJS"In general, judicial restraint -a deference to legislative bodies or referendums- has not been the hallmark of the Court over the past ten or fifteen years. I think that bodes well for overturning DOMA and Prop 8. The four justices appointed by Democrats-Ginsburg,Breyer,Soto, and Kagan just need one moderate/conservative to side with them as I see all four of those as highly likely to overturn both policies. Federalism issues often bring conservatives to the state supremacy side and that could do the trick. The other interesting constitutional issue involves the level of scrutiny which may be attached to equal protection(14th Amend,) claims. If the Court jacks the burden up to a heightened level, this issue is rolling down hill rapidly.
Well, let's imagine that the issue is settled by the Court as a state's rights issue. Wouldn't that nullify just about anything the Federal government has to say about gay marriage? Who has the most to gain or lose in that case?
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "SGOS"Even if gays win these cases, I will still be appalled if it isn't a unanimous decision.
I would be absolutely stunned if it is a unanimous decision or even a significant majority, though I agree that it should. An awful lot of newsworthy decisiosn in recent years have been 5-4 along "party" lines.
For many years, I was under the impression that the Supreme Court was the one branch of government that was impartial. But it's obvious that it's just like the other two branches. I may not have been paying enough attention in the past, but I still wonder sometimes if the court has changed, or if it's just because I'm more aware.
No, the court has always been like this since the start. And that's not a bad thing either mind you.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "PJS"In general, judicial restraint -a deference to legislative bodies or referendums- has not been the hallmark of the Court over the past ten or fifteen years. I think that bodes well for overturning DOMA and Prop 8. The four justices appointed by Democrats-Ginsburg,Breyer,Soto, and Kagan just need one moderate/conservative to side with them as I see all four of those as highly likely to overturn both policies. Federalism issues often bring conservatives to the state supremacy side and that could do the trick. The other interesting constitutional issue involves the level of scrutiny which may be attached to equal protection(14th Amend,) claims. If the Court jacks the burden up to a heightened level, this issue is rolling down hill rapidly.
Well, let's imagine that the issue is settled by the Court as a state's rights issue. Wouldn't that nullify just about anything the Federal government has to say about gay marriage? Who has the most to gain or lose in that case?
It would and that could cut both ways, making geography paramount. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause applies to states, however, and if that is the basis of the ruling, and it's highest criterion is applied for discrimination, then it seems orientation considerations are not likely to last.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"No, the court has always been like this since the start. And that's not a bad thing either mind you.
How can partiality be a good for justice?
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Wheatthins"No, the court has always been like this since the start. And that's not a bad thing either mind you.
How can partiality be a good for justice?
A: if we wanted justice to be completely impartial, we would have just replaced judges and juries with robots because,
B: there are many competing legal theories out there (some better than others) that differ on concepts in justice that are valid enough to have yet to go away, even after many centuries of democratic debate on them.
Simply put, shit isn't black and white like we sometimes wish it was.
Quote from: "SGOS"Well, let's imagine that the issue is settled by the Court as a state's rights issue. Wouldn't that nullify just about anything the Federal government has to say about gay marriage? Who has the most to gain or lose in that case?
IMO DOMA is the more important battle. California's going to toss Prop 8 and probably legalize gay marriage in legislature or with more ballot initiatives (and holy fuck they need to fix that shit, tyranny of the majority for a
constitutional amendment? :rolleyes: ) very soon regardless of what happens with the court. The polls have swung something like >60% in favor now compared to a toss up when Prop 8 passed. I doubt they'll rule on it in a way that would make other state's laws or amendments against gay marriage illegal. California was a special case where it
was legal, then was taken away by Prop 8. It was never legal in other states so it's not taking away a previously held right. That's a pretty important distinction legally, and if I'm not mistaken it's how the circuit court ruled on it in the appeal as well.
DOMA affects the country in a similar way to how state marijuana dispensors in legal states can still get nailed by the feds if they feel like it. DOMA validates all those discriminatory state laws and undercuts a lot of the equality state ones. Gay married couples in states that allow it still lose out on other federal rights even if their state allows it, eg they don't get the benefits, housing, etc. if they're military or work for the federal government. Getting rid of DOMA removes a roadblock to any real discussion on the matter or future legislation both at state and federal level. DOMA is an entirely negative law so it's removal can really only be positive or neutral. Red states will continue as is and progressive states will have nothing federal impeding them.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Wheatthins"No, the court has always been like this since the start. And that's not a bad thing either mind you.
How can partiality be a good for justice?
A: if we wanted justice to be completely impartial, we would have just replaced judges and juries with robots because,
B: there are many competing legal theories out there (some better than others) that differ on concepts in justice that are valid enough to have yet to go away, even after many centuries of democratic debate on them.
Simply put, shit isn't black and white like we sometimes wish it was.
Then why not just determine legality through the executive and legislative branches, and dispense with the court completely?
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "SGOS"Well, let's imagine that the issue is settled by the Court as a state's rights issue. Wouldn't that nullify just about anything the Federal government has to say about gay marriage? Who has the most to gain or lose in that case?
I doubt they'll rule on it in a way that would make other state's laws or amendments against gay marriage illegal. California was a special case where it was legal, then was taken away by Prop 8. It was never legal in other states so it's not taking away a previously held right. That's a pretty important distinction legally, and if I'm not mistaken it's how the circuit court ruled on it in the appeal as well.
But why waste the courts time even taking up the prop 8 case in the first place? They could have just denied cert and had the exact same outcome. The 9th WANTED them to do that in the first place, which is why they made their ruling narrow.
Quote from: "SGOS"Then why not just determine legality through the executive and legislative branches, and dispense with the court completely?
Its called that whole separation of powers thing we all get taught in civics class.
Roberts is concerned about his legacy, and his lesbian cousin is in the audience on this trial. I expect him to side with the Dem appointed justices.
Scalia is an old school bigot who thinks his shit doesn't stink. Expect Alito to side with Scalia against Civil Rights.
Not sure on Thomas. Nor on Kennedy.
Might be a 5-4 of Roberts with the Dem appointments.
pdf transcript of the Prop 8 arguments:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... 2-144a.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf)
Quote from: "SvZurich"Roberts is concerned about his legacy, and his lesbian cousin is in the audience on this trial. I expect him to side with the Dem appointed justices.
Scalia is an old school bigot who thinks his shit doesn't stink. Expect Alito to side with Scalia against Civil Rights.
Not sure on Thomas. Nor on Kennedy.
Might be a 5-4 of Roberts with the Dem appointments.
Roberts is to hard for me to read just because he is still a relatively new justice and has been known to surprise people with his rulings. He's a tossup for me.
Scalia will more than likely vote against, but he is not a biggot neocon I think. He is a textualist who sometimes likes to bend his legal theory to his advantage sometimes when it comes to certain issues. But ALL the justices do this from time to time, scalia just a bit more than most. 10% for 90% against, if i were a betting man.
Alito is 100% no, as ive never seen or heard of him making decisions that would lead me to believe otherwise.
Thomas is the odd one out for me, even when everyone else thinks he's a given no.(and by all means, he is much more of a conservative justice if not the most conservative one) But I have reasons for this.
1. In 2003 in Lawerence vs Texas, Thomas wrote a completely separate dissenting opinion on the matter and while he thought legally Texas had a right to ban gay sex, he went out of his way to point out that personally he thought the whole concept was stupid and if he had been in the legislature, he would have voted to repeal it long ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas))
2. Thomas is a black man married to a white woman, something that was illegal in the past using many of the same arguments made in court today. The irony of this should not be lost on him.
3. When an issue before the court hits home for the man, he's much more willing to go against his general beliefs than he normally would. See Virgina vs Black to see what I mean.
70-30 for him affirming gay marriage
Kennedy is libertarian , and a bleeding heart at that.
90-10 for him affirming gay marriage
The rest of the liberal justices, Kagen , Ginsburgh,Bryer, and Soto are a given for affirming.
If they are going to decide on the whole enchilada with Perry here, you have a 5-4 decision reasonably involving one of the 2 more conservative justices siding with the liberals, and Roberts being a tossup as the decider vote. And then you have a fairly good betting odd on getting a 6-3 or even a 7-2 decision if you stretch it a bit. And I'm willing to bet that even if none of the more conservative justices wants to affirm, at least one of them, most likely Kennedy, will just abstain leaving it a stalemate which means the 9th circuit's ruling will stand and California will still get gay marriage.
I just listened to a snippet from the case and it was hopeful.
//http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/51337266/#51337266
It's audio only. One witness is being questioned by a couple of the justices and he is getting grilled. Their responses invoke laughter in the court room a couple of times.
Freedom of speech was achieved when government was removed from speech.
Freedom of the press was achieved when government was removed from the press.
Freedom of religion was achieved when government was removed from religion.
I'm for freedom of marriage - how do you suppose that can best be achieved?
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Freedom of speech was achieved when government was removed from speech.
Freedom of the press was achieved when government was removed from the press.
Freedom of religion was achieved when government was removed from religion.
I'm for freedom of marriage - how do you suppose that can best be achieved?
Since when was government removed from any of the above? And...government is in the marriage business.. Anyone can be married by any judge if they meet the legal requirements.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer":blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
Jesus Jason, we get it already. You're a libertarian who hates a government that does anything useful.
If we end the government licensing of marriages, we end not only the current marriage equality debate, we end the next marriage equality debate. The one that libertarians are already arguing in favor of greater equality and progressives would wish we would shut up about.
And the first amendment keeps the government fairly out of each of those three.
We also end marriage as a useful thing. I'm not sure if that's really worth it. Some people really need the legal stuff that marriage grants to make a living.
Why would we need government marriage certificates in order to have marriage? Goodness, are you that wedded to official permission?
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Goodness, are you that wedded to official permission?
No fair! A punist!
:rollin:
No I'm wedded to my girlfriend, which actually saves me hundreds to thousands of dollars a year on taxes, child support, legal nonsense, and other crap that makes our life affordable and pleasant. I don't give a fuck what they call it (and I still call her my girlfriend) but the freely available legally binding contract that merges the assets of two people and gives them full shared custody over their children as well a bunch of other legal rights and duties is actually kinda important to us.
You know, you could have all of that without a piece of government paper. I know, ever since the government co-opted the authority on marriage, it is hard to imagine it any other way, but for millennia it has been other ways.
QuoteYou know, you could have all of that without a piece of government paper.
And still have them for free, easy, standardised and entirely legally binding? Then I'm all for it.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You know, you could have all of that without a piece of government paper. I know, ever since the government co-opted the authority on marriage, it is hard to imagine it any other way, but for millennia it has been other ways.
There are over 1100 legal rights and privileges which are granted to married couples that are not granted to non-married couples. If you don't want the government to be in the business of a granting marriage licenses, then all of those legal benefits of marriage would also have to go away and/or be granted to everyone. I don't want to live in a world where my wife isn't able to tell medical staff on my behalf that I want to be on life support. I also don't want to live in a world where some chick I slept with twice can identify herself as my girlfriend and be legally able to tell medical staff that I don't want to be on life support.
Government needs to be involved with marriage licensing or all the legal privileges of marriage go away.
An article in NYT today said a number of justices are questioning whether or not the court should even have agreed to hear the case. Theres a chance this will get thrown out before any deliberation even happens.
the question they should ask themselves is "do I want to go down on the right side of history, or as a chickenshit?"
HBA, Republicans are proud to be Chickenshit. Look at their overall stance on issues in history since the 1970s.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Freedom of speech was achieved when government was removed from speech.
Freedom of the press was achieved when government was removed from the press.
Freedom of religion was achieved when government was removed from religion.
I'm for freedom of marriage - how do you suppose that can best be achieved?
You need to take your hyper Libertarian bologna somewhere else. Seriously you want to see what "limited" government looks like Somalia would be your cup of tea, centralized wealth in the hands of the few because of no regulation.
Please stop sniffing the glue of Ayn Rand.
You "You are anti car because we have speed limits", that is how idiotic your logic is.
"Freedom of the press" Always? So can I sell porn at a grade school? Can I sell beer to a 4 year old?
The only thing about marriage licenses I object to is they are TOO easy to get, just like guns. People get into them and have no damned clue how to manage them and often it blows up in their face.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the question they should ask themselves is "do I want to go down on the right side of history, or as a chickenshit?"
I've got another "faux third party" nut on another board who is pulling the same crap with "legal precedence" as he does with his economic crap. He'll quote articles and experts up the yin yang and says "see this works", ignoring the blatantly obvious "FOR WHO?"
He's pulling the same "state vs federal" crap. This is a no brainer and it should, even though it most likely wont, this time, it should be 9-0 if they have any fucking balls.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"An article in NYT today said a number of justices are questioning whether or not the court should even have agreed to hear the case. Theres a chance this will get thrown out before any deliberation even happens.
They will say this with the customary half intelligible legal mumbo jumbo, and will redirect our attention to some lofty precedent or text. But WTF? This is the biggest civil rights issue facing the US today. AND they want to avoid ruling on it? What is their job, again? To protect they grey areas that congress would prefer to let fester so they can be used to manipulate voters? Sitting on their hands should not be their job. That's what the legislative branch does.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Nonsensei"An article in NYT today said a number of justices are questioning whether or not the court should even have agreed to hear the case. Theres a chance this will get thrown out before any deliberation even happens.
They will say this with the customary half intelligible legal mumbo jumbo, and will redirect our attention to some lofty precedent or text. But WTF? This is the biggest civil rights issue facing the US today. AND they want to avoid ruling on it? What is their job, again? To protect they grey areas that congress would prefer to let fester so they can be used to manipulate voters? Sitting on their hands should not be their job. That's what the legislative branch does.
This ^^^.
Well, said, you!
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"This ^^^.
Well, said, you!
Thanks. I notice you are now a Wooly Mammoth. I haven't seen that level before, although I don't usually pay that much attention.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Nonsensei"An article in NYT today said a number of justices are questioning whether or not the court should even have agreed to hear the case. Theres a chance this will get thrown out before any deliberation even happens.
They will say this with the customary half intelligible legal mumbo jumbo, and will redirect our attention to some lofty precedent or text. But WTF? This is the biggest civil rights issue facing the US today. AND they want to avoid ruling on it? What is their job, again? To protect they grey areas that congress would prefer to let fester so they can be used to manipulate voters? Sitting on their hands should not be their job. That's what the legislative branch does.
I read quite a bit of the transcript and weeding through the legaleze mumbo jumbo, it sounded like that whole thing about whether they should hear the case is pretty standard, and they made each of the presenters go through it. A lot of it also seemed to be about establishing whether they were going to rule as the 9th Circuit did in limiting the decision to California or whether it would have a national effect. The merits arguments were much more interesting.
In related news:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jo ... -im,31821/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jongun-comes-out-in-support-of-gay-marriage-im,31821/)
QuoteKim Jong-Un Comes Out In Support Of Gay Marriage: 'I'm Not A Monster'
PYONGYANG—As the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un told reporters that, considering he's not a completely awful human being, he unequivocally believes that gay people should be able to marry. "Of course I believe gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally under the law, for God's sake; I'm not a monster," the despotic leader said, adding that the idea of trying to stop a loving couple from legally marrying one another is not only wrong from a moral and ethical standpoint but also violates the Fourteenth Amendment. "I have no idea what's going on with the justices over there, to be honest. The whole thing is a fucking embarrassment." Kim added that, should the Supreme Court not declare same-sex marriage constitutional in all 50 states, he would strongly consider launching a nuclear weapon at the United States.
:lol:
Quote from: "Brian37""Freedom of the press" Always? So can I sell porn at a grade school? Can I sell beer to a 4 year old?
Are you quite certain you know what the press is? Because last I checked, it didn't have anything to do with beer.
Quote from: "missingnocchi"Quote from: "Brian37""Freedom of the press" Always? So can I sell porn at a grade school? Can I sell beer to a 4 year old?
Are you quite certain you know what the press is? Because last I checked, it didn't have anything to do with beer.
Yes it does, a paper makes money by selling add space.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Nonsensei"An article in NYT today said a number of justices are questioning whether or not the court should even have agreed to hear the case. Theres a chance this will get thrown out before any deliberation even happens.
They will say this with the customary half intelligible legal mumbo jumbo, and will redirect our attention to some lofty precedent or text. But WTF? This is the biggest civil rights issue facing the US today. AND they want to avoid ruling on it? What is their job, again? To protect they grey areas that congress would prefer to let fester so they can be used to manipulate voters? Sitting on their hands should not be their job. That's what the legislative branch does.
I read quite a bit of the transcript and weeding through the legaleze mumbo jumbo, it sounded like that whole thing about whether they should hear the case is pretty standard, and they made each of the presenters go through it. A lot of it also seemed to be about establishing whether they were going to rule as the 9th Circuit did in limiting the decision to California or whether it would have a national effect. The merits arguments were much more interesting.
There has been precedence in other minority cases where bigotry was upheld in our history. Making state vs federal the issue is a distraction. Once you say "I can do this, but you cant" when the "outsider" who really isn't especially when they are a legal citizen, who is not a criminal, you have lost the argument. All mumbo jumbo aside.
This is a no brainer. I don't care what prior cases support bigotry and deny equality ON ANY ISSUE, not just gays but our entire legal history. The reason bigotry long term gets handed it's ass is because future courts can overturn prior rulings. We once had states that banned inter racial marriage and courts that upheld it.
The real question isn't will gay marriage eventually become legal, it will because younger generations, no matter how this court rules, will eventually over turn all bans nationally. The real question is are YOU yourself personally willing to force gays nationally to wait just because we have a Supreme Court who might not have the balls to do the right thing so gays do not have to wait longer?
So, for the justices that will side against gay rights, what, exactly is their argument?
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Freedom of speech was achieved when government was removed from speech.
Freedom of the press was achieved when government was removed from the press.
Freedom of religion was achieved when government was removed from religion.
I'm for freedom of marriage - how do you suppose that can best be achieved?
You need to take your hyper Libertarian bologna somewhere else. Seriously you want to see what "limited" government looks like Somalia would be your cup of tea, centralized wealth in the hands of the few because of no regulation.
Please stop sniffing the glue of Ayn Rand.
You "You are anti car because we have speed limits", that is how idiotic your logic is.
"Freedom of the press" Always? So can I sell porn at a grade school? Can I sell beer to a 4 year old?
The only thing about marriage licenses I object to is they are TOO easy to get, just like guns. People get into them and have no damned clue how to manage them and often it blows up in their face.
Somalia works as an example of libertarian, limited government about like Detroit works as an example of government controlled by the Democrats. Culture couldn't possibly have anything to do with either one.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Nonsensei"An article in NYT today said a number of justices are questioning whether or not the court should even have agreed to hear the case. Theres a chance this will get thrown out before any deliberation even happens.
They will say this with the customary half intelligible legal mumbo jumbo, and will redirect our attention to some lofty precedent or text. But WTF? This is the biggest civil rights issue facing the US today. AND they want to avoid ruling on it? What is their job, again? To protect they grey areas that congress would prefer to let fester so they can be used to manipulate voters? Sitting on their hands should not be their job. That's what the legislative branch does.
I read quite a bit of the transcript and weeding through the legaleze mumbo jumbo, it sounded like that whole thing about whether they should hear the case is pretty standard, and they made each of the presenters go through it. A lot of it also seemed to be about establishing whether they were going to rule as the 9th Circuit did in limiting the decision to California or whether it would have a national effect. The merits arguments were much more interesting.
Exactly, I suspect they just wanted to cross all the T's and Dot all the I's in the case so they don't have it come back to them on some bullshit technicality appeal. They want to be done with this marriage mess just as much as everyone else does.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Freedom of speech was achieved when government was removed from speech.
Freedom of the press was achieved when government was removed from the press.
Freedom of religion was achieved when government was removed from religion.
I'm for freedom of marriage - how do you suppose that can best be achieved?
You need to take your hyper Libertarian bologna somewhere else. Seriously you want to see what "limited" government looks like Somalia would be your cup of tea, centralized wealth in the hands of the few because of no regulation.
Please stop sniffing the glue of Ayn Rand.
You "You are anti car because we have speed limits", that is how idiotic your logic is.
"Freedom of the press" Always? So can I sell porn at a grade school? Can I sell beer to a 4 year old?
The only thing about marriage licenses I object to is they are TOO easy to get, just like guns. People get into them and have no damned clue how to manage them and often it blows up in their face.
Somalia works as an example of libertarian, limited government about like Detroit works as an example of government controlled by the Democrats. Culture couldn't possibly have anything to do with either one.
Orwell warned us about double speak.
So what you are suggesting is that the middle class and poor of Detroit matched all the corporate money republicans got to fuel their campaigns that made "Emergency Management Laws" law which took away the voting rights of minorities?
Ok, gotcha, the earth is flat even though it isn't.
I'm suggesting that the Detroit government was a wreck. What to do about it is another issue but the fact remains that it was dysfunctional.
BTW, Orwell was wrong. Huxley was much closer to the truth.
Quote from: "billhilly"I'm suggesting that the Detroit government was a wreck. What to do about it is another issue but the fact remains that it was dysfunctional.
BTW, Orwell was wrong. Huxley was much closer to the truth.
Huh? No way? You did not just say that?
This is like comparing the skeptic to the apathetic.
Orwell, "Watch out for monopolies of power"
Huxley, "We don't know so why try?"
Orwell – Government Oppression
Huxley – Infinite Distraction
http://www.egodialogues.com/2009/aldous ... ge-orwell/ (http://www.egodialogues.com/2009/aldous-huxley-george-orwell/)
Quote from: "billhilly"Orwell – Government Oppression
Huxley – Infinite Distraction
http://www.egodialogues.com/2009/aldous ... ge-orwell/ (http://www.egodialogues.com/2009/aldous-huxley-george-orwell/)
Huxley single handedly on par with Plato fucked up human logic. Plato thought of "questioning" not as testing, but merely as thinking to get to the "perfect" Huxley's attitude was "fuck it, why even try to figure it out"
Orwell is dead on, "unless you question government oppression will happen"
How anyone can compare the two or even try to flip them is astounding. HUXLELY was an idiot and a mental midget, the fuckwad who would ignor Nadar and say "Most people don't crash their cars so fuck seatbelts"
Orwell would say "Yea, ignore reality and don't wear your seat belt and be a dip shit enough and your number will come up"
Government oppression certainly has happened, is happening to an extent, and will happen again. At this time in the west though, infinite distraction holds sway. Apathetic people zombied out on pop culture and iphones.
Quote from: "billhilly"Government oppression certainly has happened, is happening to an extent, and will happen again. At this time in the west though, infinite distraction holds sway. Apathetic people zombied out on pop culture and iphones.
What does that have to do with Huxley? He was a fucking idiot. Orwell had the sense to say "wear your safety belt" meaning to avoid monopolies of power questioning was the right thing to do.
Orwell is why Fox News should go down in flames. Huxley is why Fox News still festers.
There ya go then. Fox news hasn't and it doesn't look like it will be going down anytime soon. Therefore, Huxley-1, Orwell-0.
Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"So, for the justices that will side against gay rights, what, exactly is their argument?
There isn't any good rulings against gay marriage. thats why they want to weasel out and refuse to issue a ruling, dismissing the case instead, on some bullshit technicality.
I can tell you now, there will not be a ruling to uphold prop 8.
either it will be deemed unconstitutional, or the case will be dismissed on some technicality, thus causing the circuit courts ruling to apply to California and nowhere else.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"There isn't any good rulings against gay marriage. thats why they want to weasel out and refuse to issue a ruling, dismissing the case instead, on some bullshit technicality.
I can tell you now, there will not be a ruling to uphold prop 8.
either it will be deemed unconstitutional, or the case will be dismissed on some technicality, thus causing the circuit courts ruling to apply to California and nowhere else.
Nononononono!!!!!!! Ive said it already in this thread and to multiple other people, they are NOT going to throw it out on the standing technicality. If they wanted to weasel out of it all they had to do was deny cert after the 9ths ruling and the same outcome would have happened. BUT THEY DIDN"T, which means they want to make an actual ruling on the merits of the case.
Quote from: "billhilly"There ya go then. Fox news hasn't and it doesn't look like it will be going down anytime soon. Therefore, Huxley-1, Orwell-0.
HA, idiots like Fuxley and Fucks News rely on credulity. So yea, in that context you are betting on the stupidity of humans. Orwell knew that if we pull our heads out of our asses we could get somewhere and did not have to be sheep.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"There isn't any good rulings against gay marriage. thats why they want to weasel out and refuse to issue a ruling, dismissing the case instead, on some bullshit technicality.
I can tell you now, there will not be a ruling to uphold prop 8.
either it will be deemed unconstitutional, or the case will be dismissed on some technicality, thus causing the circuit courts ruling to apply to California and nowhere else.
Nononononono!!!!!!! Ive said it already in this thread and to multiple other people, they are NOT going to throw it out on the standing technicality. If they wanted to weasel out of it all they had to do was deny cert after the 9ths ruling and the same outcome would have happened. BUT THEY DIDN"T, which means they want to make an actual ruling on the merits of the case.
I hope you're right. I think they will strike down DOMA but if the wonks are right they will weasel out of prop 8. if they don't, I look forward to my home state being forced to accept gay marriage.
take THAT Oklahoma!
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "missingnocchi"Quote from: "Brian37""Freedom of the press" Always? So can I sell porn at a grade school? Can I sell beer to a 4 year old?
Are you quite certain you know what the press is? Because last I checked, it didn't have anything to do with beer.
Yes it does, a paper makes money by selling add space.
Oh, that's right. I forgot about how advertisements are always selling beer to toddlers. Silly me.
Quote from: "SGOS"Even if gays win these cases, I will still be appalled if it isn't a unanimous decision.
Well, anyone should be appalled at Scalia, who's a make-no-bones-about-it homophobic bigot. Clarence Thomas is pretty much a Scalia clone. Alito... I have little hope for him either.
At the very max, it will be a 6-3 decision. But I don't have much faith in Roberts either (despite his surprising ruling on Obamacare). The key lies in Kennedy, who has a good record of favoring equality for gays.
Remember, Roberts INVITED his lesbian first cousin to fly in from California to sit in on the Court. Assuming he actually loves her, I cannot see him telling her to come as his guest if he planned to vote against her wishes.
Quote from: "billhilly"Orwell – Government Oppression
Huxley – Infinite Distraction
http://www.egodialogues.com/2009/aldous ... ge-orwell/ (http://www.egodialogues.com/2009/aldous-huxley-george-orwell/)
In either case, an educated and free populace is the best response to either. But I fear, in the west, that Brave New World paradigm is what we currently have to a large extent.
Quote from: "Atheon"Well, anyone should be appalled at Scalia, who's a make-no-bones-about-it homophobic bigot..
No, Scalia is not a bigot. That would be giving him to much credit and letting him off to easy. He is a retard who uses a half-assed legal theory to troll people that NOBODY except him will even touch. Plain and simple. Don't brush him off and hate him for something as simple bigotry. HATE HIM because textualism is shit tier legal reasoning and should go away forever.
Quote from: "Atheon"Clarence Thomas is pretty much a Scalia clone.
PLEEASE don't compare Thomas to Scalia, they are complete opposites in terms of legal personality and follow very distant and distinct legal theories.
Want proof? this is what he said in his separate dissent of Lawrence vs Texas. 2003, the case that struck down all of the countries anti sodomy laws for good.
"I write separately (from the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia) to note that the law before the court today 'is...uncommonly silly'." If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."
Quote from: "Atheon"At the very max, it will be a 6-3 decision. But I don't have much faith in Roberts either (despite his surprising ruling on Obamacare). The key lies in Kennedy, who has a good record of favoring equality for gays.
It suddenly strikes me as odd to hear someone contemplate another's "favoring equality for gays." What strikes me as odd is that the very statement implicitly points out that there are actually some, rather powerful educated others, who for arbitrary reasons, do not favor equality for gays. Or for that matter, might not favor equality for many other segments of the human population as well.
There are people making decisions in the "Defense of Marriage" (since that's that is what our duplicitous politicians conspired to call a law that actually defends nothing), but is rather simple, straight forward, and discriminatory in its intent and purpose. For something to be defended, it assumes that that thing must be under attack, which is not what is happening in society today. No one is proposing to destroy the institution of marriage.
But if our government would have chosen to name the law in such a way as to describe what it really is, it might cause small portions of the population, even among those who are half asleep, to feel a slight twinge of conscience. Some would be delighted to call it what it is, so they can proudly display their superiority by sticking it to their inferiors, and others, like my foggy brained neighbor would insist that there is no discrimination toward gay people in our society, because in his words (I swear, I'm not making this up), "They pay taxes like everyone else."
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "Atheon"Clarence Thomas is pretty much a Scalia clone.
PLEEASE don't compare Thomas to Scalia, they are complete opposites in terms of legal personality and follow very distant and distinct legal theories.
Want proof? this is what he said in his separate dissent of Lawrence vs Texas. 2003, the case that struck down all of the countries anti sodomy laws for good.
"I write separately (from the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia) to note that the law before the court today 'is...uncommonly silly'." If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."
What was his reasoning for dissenting in the first place then?
Quote from: "SGOS"It suddenly strikes me as odd to hear someone contemplate another's "favoring equality for gays." What strikes me as odd is that the very statement implicitly points out that there are actually some, rather powerful educated others, who for arbitrary reasons, do not favor equality for gays. Or for that matter, might not favor equality for many other segments of the human population as well.
I think that's not even in question. There are plenty of people in all branches of government who don't favor equality.
Quote from: "SGOS"There are people making decisions in the "Defense of Marriage" (since that's that is what our duplicitous politicians conspired to call a law that actually defends nothing), but is rather simple, straight forward, and discriminatory in its intent and purpose. For something to be defended, it assumes that that thing must be under attack, which is not what is happening in society today. No one is proposing to destroy the institution of marriage.
This is something the Dems need to stop letting the right wing get away with. It's been a GOP strategy for a long time to label bills and causes in a way that skews the conversation. The Patriot Act, Pro-Life, the Defense of Marrage Act, the Family Research Council, The Path to Prosperity, the list goes on and on. All nice sounding titles that make a dissenter sound like a douchebag, all with little substance and some are downright vile.
My boss at work said something interesting recently regarding how a company or the employees present performance or forecasts in meetings. When they have a good story to tell, they use a lot of data, lot of facts, measurable performance by the numbers. When they don't, they use a lot of fluffy, vague language telling a story and hiding from presenting any hard data or skewing what they have with cherrypicked ranges, other little tricks, or straight up lying. It's a handy way of telling who's completely full of shit and who maybe isn't. A prime example was following the last election watching Romney and Ryan repeatedly dragging their feet on any honest look at the numbers and changing their story every debate, particularly with the budget.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "Atheon"Clarence Thomas is pretty much a Scalia clone.
PLEEASE don't compare Thomas to Scalia, they are complete opposites in terms of legal personality and follow very distant and distinct legal theories.
Want proof? this is what he said in his separate dissent of Lawrence vs Texas. 2003, the case that struck down all of the countries anti sodomy laws for good.
"I write separately (from the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia) to note that the law before the court today 'is...uncommonly silly'." If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."
What was his reasoning for dissenting in the first place then?
That the government is all powerful and should be able to regulate things as they see fit, even when it comes to sexual activities. Which, you know it does and should be able to in many instances.(rape, beastiality, incest, ect) And that its law makers jobs to change regulations if society thinks they should be or if they are wasteful and pointless, not the courts. (which they fucking should, thats why we have legislative bodies in the first place)
Where I and most of us here would disagree with him is that often times, when lawmakers drag their fucking feet in changing laws and just doing their jobs, the courts have a fucking duty to step in, smack some bitches around and do something. Thomas would say the courts shouldn't do that when it's just privacy about sexual habits that we are talking about.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"What was his reasoning for dissenting in the first place then?
That the government is all powerful and should be able to regulate things as they see fit, even when it comes to sexual activities. Which, you know it does and should be able to in many instances.(rape, beastiality, incest, ect) And that its law makers jobs to change regulations if society thinks they should be or if they are wasteful and pointless, not the courts. (which they fucking should, thats why we have legislative bodies in the first place)
Where I and most of us here would disagree with him is that often times, when lawmakers drag their fucking feet in changing laws and just doing their jobs, the courts have a fucking duty to step in, smack some bitches around and do something. Thomas would say the courts shouldn't do that when it's just privacy about sexual habits that we are talking about.
:-k That's interesting. He's basically invalidating half the point of the Supreme Court then. The whole checks & balances thing to the other branches when the other branches do something stupid and pass a law that's unconstitutional and discriminatory makes it their duty to step in and invalidate those laws.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon":-k That's interesting. He's basically invalidating half the point of the Supreme Court then. The whole checks & balances thing to the other branches when the other branches do something stupid and pass a law that's unconstitutional and discriminatory makes it their duty to step in and invalidate those laws.
The Supreme Court appears to be more of an extension of the legislature, rather than an agency of justice acting as a check and balance. Individuals of the court often seem to be little more than rubber stamps for the party that appoints them.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon":-k That's interesting. He's basically invalidating half the point of the Supreme Court then. The whole checks & balances thing to the other branches when the other branches do something stupid and pass a law that's unconstitutional and discriminatory makes it their duty to step in and invalidate those laws.
Its not so much that he thinks the courts should never step up and intervene in things. He just thinks there it should be a bit more limited in some cases. And always try to remember, most supreme court cases are decided unanimously or with a large majority. (if Scalia wasn't here you would see alot more unanimous ones too) Its when you get into legal cases that stretch legal reason or are on the periphery , and even ones that are highly politicized, you get to see the differences between what the justices think.
Quote from: "SGOS"The Supreme Court appears to be more of an extension of the legislature, rather than an agency of justice acting as a check and balance. Individuals of the court often seem to be little more than rubber stamps for the party that appoints them.
Please, everyone needs to stop thinking this because its not whats happening in reality.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Quote from: "SGOS"The Supreme Court appears to be more of an extension of the legislature, rather than an agency of justice acting as a check and balance. Individuals of the court often seem to be little more than rubber stamps for the party that appoints them.
Please, everyone needs to stop thinking this because its not whats happening in reality.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Quote from: "Wheatthins"Please, everyone needs to stop thinking this because its not whats happening in reality.
Actually it is the de facto reality. Since its a presidential appointment, they tend to pick people who align with themselves politically. In essence you get a lifetime appointment for someone who shares your political agenda, which is why successfully appointing one is considered a major accomplishment for an administration.
Its pretty clear when Scalia delivers his scathing dissenting opinion on a given issue that might be vaguely supported legally but is more noticeably stuffed with his thinly veiled personal opinion. These people are human, they have agendas, and they answer to nobody once appointed. Its not hard to believe that, after awhile, the adherence to determining the constitutionality of an issue falls to the wayside in the pursuit of molding public opinion or, at the very least, setting the tone for it.
As evidence I offer up some of the justices reluctance to take this case on with the explanation that it may be "too soon". Its never too soon to determine the constitutionality of an issue. If they were solely focused on that then they wouldn't even have this sort of objection. That they are considering factors other than the constitutionality of the laws before them shows that they are wandering outside the parameters of their jobs and considering things that are not legally relevant.