Reply With Quote
Justice Antonin Scalia warned the ruling was “a threat to American democracy,”although he grumbled that the substance of the case was “not of immense personal importance to me.”
WTF?
How is that relevant?
All four dissenters to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality issued opinions that warned darkly of far-reaching unintended consequences.
“Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
( I don't remember Roberts being this emotiona, inflammatory, and irrational
The chief justice argued that same-sex marriage supporters had been remarkably successful in recent years persuading voters to adopt their view on marriage equality – but “that ends today.”
“Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of cons utional law,” Roberts said. “Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage,
( yeah, well, abolishing slavery was also "a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept"
He said the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges had invalidated the marriage laws of more than half the United Sates and the accepted standard in societies going back for millennia – from “the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.”
“Just who do we think we are?” Roberts said.
Justice Antonin Scalia warned the ruling was “a threat to American democracy,”
What concerned the conservative justice was that the Supreme Court had essentially declared itself the “Ruler of 320 million Americans from coast-to-coast.”
Like Roberts, Scalia complained that the court had put a stop to a “respectful” debate on same-sex marriage that was playing out in state legislatures – often in favor of marriage equality.
Scalia also took a personal swipe at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion — which he panned as “pretentious” and “egotistic.”
“Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect,” Scalia wrote.
He warned darkly, using a word most strongly associated with Nazism, that the court’s liberal majority had committed an act of violence against American law.
“But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch,” Scalia wrote.
“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Cons ution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/scal...e+Raw+Story%29
It sure looks like these VRWC JINO "judges" watch Fox and other right-wing hate media.
Justice Antonin Scalia warned the ruling was “a threat to American democracy,”
WTF?
How is that relevant?
typical of the ideological assholes Repugs put in the judiciaryWTF?
How is that relevant? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Catholic JINOs inflaming the Repug hater base.
Disgusting. Signs of the end of days.
Clarence Thomas: Same-sex marriage bans, like slavery, were just fine for human dignity
But Justice Clarence Thomas (who was predictably one of the four judges in the minority) seemed to think all of the "dignity" business was ridiculous. He explained this by insisting that there is nothing the government could ever do that would affect a person's dignity.
Here's some of his dissent:
The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Cons ution contains no "dignity" Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate.
When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
Okay. So he thinks human dignity is "innate" and the government can't touch it. That's a very nice sentiment, but it arguably doesn't have a lot of real-life resonance for people who feel they've been stripped of their dignity by being prohibited from doing something — like getting married — that all other Americans are allowed to do.
But then Thomas, who is the court's only African-American justice, made his feelings about the topic even more shockingly plain (emphasis added):
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government.
Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.!!!!!!!
Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them.
And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits.
The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."
Yes, you read that correctly. He said that slavery did not have any impact on enslaved people's dignity.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851211...e-sex-marriage
goddam, the Repugs put total garbage judges in courts
Repug JINO judicial "reasoning"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-26-2015 at 11:16 AM.
Only legal in 20 countries on the Planet. America is backwards
Since gays threaten your existence, you might as well kill yourself first and get it over with
clarence thomas is a coon
Kill yourself got cuck.
The majority opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette has long been a favorite of mine, as a civil libertarian, because it recognizes so much of the basic truth of the anti-majoritarian model the Cons ution establishes. Among the best parts of that opinion is the recognition (echoed today by Justice Kennedy's majority) that:
The idea of the Cons ution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Ibid.
When a right is fundamental, we don't get to vote about who enjoys that right.
Marriage is a fundamental right.
No, I'm good.
yawn
I never saw what the big deal was. It's not like marriage is all that sacred in the United States where half of them end in divorce anyway
this was an easy call for the SCOTUS... one of the big no-brainers in recent memory
Did boutons really just post an article calling our supreme court liberal?
Beautifully said.
What people should be asking is why government is all up in marriage in the first place.
you sound mad and afraid the world will end tho. Killing yourself before end times might be a valid option for you
Isn't the end of days a good thing?
there are legal and monetary ramifications to marriage
Lol, the world will never end. Evil people and wilful sinners will end. And no, why would I kill myself? A new system is coming without all of these disgusting immoral people.
Because government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
