Posted on 06/26/2015 7:40:16 AM PDT by HomerBohn
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry in a historic triumph for gay rights.
-snip-
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of the court, said that the hope of gay people intending to marry "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
How about some guys and girls who want to marry their gun(s)? That would make them “happy” and since nothing can get in the way of “happiness”, it must be allowed per SCOTUS.
Gun laws in this country to too hodgepodge...they impinge on “happiness”. They need to be universal from coast to coast, sea to sea.
#HappinessIsAWarmGun
There’s only one problem with your alternative history: Bush wanted Roberts as CJ all along. Had Roberts been confirmed as an AJ prior to Rehnquist’s death, Bush still would have nominated Roberts for CJ.
As for why residents don’t nominate state supreme court justices to SCOTUS, one of the main reasons is that few prominent state supreme court justices are as young as prominent judges in the federal judiciary that end up in SCOTUS shortlists. That’s one of the problems with lifetime appointments for SCOTUS; presidents rarely name anyone 60 or older because the you ger the nominee the longer he’ll be on the Court. Personally, I support the constitutional amendment that has been discussed for several years (and that Rick Perry recently touted) to make SCOTUS tems last 18 years (with a vacancy every two years), which would eliminate the disincentive to nominating a 65-year-old to SCOTUS.
I have Warren "fraud" Burger to the left of Warren - at least in regard to his court.
The world has lost whatever mind it had.
I went on Facebook and the rainbow s**t is all over the place. One of my cousins in Italy, who’s married to a woman and has two little girls, has the rainbow s**t all over the place on his page.
I PM’d him and (translated) told him: “Are you f**king insane? Do you not know the main place where AIDS comes from? You’re celebrating the destruction of civilization.”
Another part of my opus deals with social circles and their importance. You, me, we MUST associate ONLY with like minded people; no more “Well, he/she is my brother/sister/etc...” If they hold beliefs that are at odds with you and your encompassing moral code, ELIMINATE THEM FROM YOUR LIFE. It doesn’t matter WHO they are. Do as Pontius Pilate did - wash your hands and be done. You’ll be better off in every conceivable way.
Interestingly enough, Ted Cruz agrees with me that voters ought to be allowed to vote out activist SCOTUS judges. Having them up for retention every decade or so would be a heck of a lot easier than trying to impeach some rogue federal judge.
Of course I don’t think it would solve the gay marriage insanity, thanks to the citizens of this nation going off the deep end and the left framing butt sex as a “civil rights” issue. And of course, it would also give leftists the opporunity to vote out conservative judges like Scalia.
Still, its got to be better than the current status quo where they’re given lifetime jobs no matter what. With Ted Cruz throwing his weight behind this, maybe the “Democracy, not a Republic” morons will wake up and realize we need MORE democracy in america, not less. If not, I enjoy seeing their beloved state legislatures putting the screws to them and ignoring public opinion on the Confederate flag. You can’t fit stupid.
Ping to my pings above in this thread - sorry I didn’t include you.
“...Because these brain damaged and genetically flawed lifeforms thrive off of attention whoring...”
True enough...
“...Deprive them of that and what are they left with? ...”
The coercive power of “Der STAAT” and its laws.
It’s what they do.
Thanks for laying that out. Needless to say I hope you’re wrong.
But if... something in the constitution mandates homosexual marriage and Obamacare is....somehow constitutional I don’t see how the word “legislature” won’t be found to be “flexible” by these clowns. ;/
Unfortunately, I was correct regarding all three remaining cases. (Well, it’s only unfortunate concerning the redistricting-commission case.)
And Kennedy was the bitch that sided with the libs.
“Justice Ginsburg wrote that the Constitution’s reference to “legislature” encompassed the people’s legislative power when acting through ballot initiatives. “
Cool, so I’m a member of the IL legislature then? Eh?
Well, now we know you can predict certain Supreme Court cases in this manner.
What do you think about vacating Supreme Court seats by abolishing them? Is that possible? It will never happen of course, but it should.
If Congress reduces the number of seats to 7 (by overriding Obama’s veto, in your fantasy scenario), then the Court would stay at 9 (remember, they’re lifetime appointments) until someone retires or dies, and then would drop to 8 with no replacement named, and after the next death or retirement it would drop to 7 and stay there. So, basically, it would take power away from the next president to fill the next two vacancies in the Court, which is nowhere near as good as having the next Republican president fill the next few vacancies. The only time that has been done was after Lincoln was assassinated and Congress (which had a Republican supermajority) didn’t want his Democrat VP Andrew Johnson filling vacancies in the newly expanded 10-seat Court, so Congress reduced the number of Justices to 9 (overriding Johnson’s veto) and then the next time a justice retired the vacancybwent unfilled and the seat was eliminated.
Actually, they knocked off 2 seats, both held by Democrats who died in office in 1865 and 1867, respectively: James Moore Wayne, appointed by President Jackson (who occupied the 5th Associate Justice seat) and John Catron (who was the first and only one to occupy the 7th Associate Justice seat), also appointed by the outgoing Jackson in the Spring of 1837 (who was the former TN Chief Justice and Van Buren’s campaign manager here in the state).
we need to knock off a couple of the leftists
Just a couple ?
There could be three or four people “marrying” it doesn’t make it real
And with this unconstitutional and un-Godly edict via black-robed tyrannical fiat, it essentially declares that ANY type of coupling is legal for “marriage.”
You’re right, DJ, Congress eliminated two seats to set the number of justices at 8 (after recently having increased them to 10); it was years later that Congress added a 9th seat to SCOTUS. But my point remains that Congress was not able to remove sitting justices from the Court merely by reducing the number of seats.
A pity.
We’ll have to go with packing then. Adding 4 once President Walker/Cruz takes office (provided they don’t F up the appointments) would allow Roberts and Kennedy to both jump ship and still have a 7-6 majority even before Kennedy and Ginsburg retire/go out Rehnquist style.
More whisting dixie, do you agree with me that a federal gay marriage ban passed by Congress would be constitutional under the 14th amendment? Would any conservative Justice uphold it?
As you may recall, I am a strong proponent of Congress using Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (which grants Congress the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions” of the 14th Amendment) to legislate that the word “person” in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment includes human beings in any stage of gestation, which would in turn trigger protection under the Privileges or Immunities (if SCOTUS ever resucitates it), Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While it is possibly that courts would rule that Congress can’t use its Section 5 power if its effect is to abridge a “right” that the courts previously had created (i.e., the “right” to abortion), there certainly is a very strong argument that Congress has the authority to *expand* the persons to whom Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies. There also would be a good chance that even if only four SCOTUS justices agreed with Congress’s use of Section 5 in such case, that a fifth justice would rule that Congress would be allowed to pass such law pursuant to the Commerce Clause (as “regulation of the abortion industry, which affects commerce among the states”) or some other of its enumerated or implied powers (what’s good for the Obamacare goose is good for the pro-life gander).
What you are proposing, on the other hand, is not plausible. Using Section 5 to deny the use of the DP and EP Clauses to matters involving marriage, or matters involving homosexual conduct certainly would be struck down by the courts. Matbe Congress could use Section 5 to legislate for prohibiting discrimination against persons who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, but that’s just about it.
The legislative power that Congress did have was to approve something like DOMA (which denied federal recognition for same-sex “marriages” and prevented courts from forcing states to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states if such “marriages” would be illegal in such state), which it did, but out of which Kennedy made toilet paper for his own consumption.
The other thing that Congress could have done, and still could do, is to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that either (i) declares that the legality or recognition of unions other than those composed of one man and one woman, or the granting of the rights or incidents of marriage to any group of persons other than a married couple composed of one man and one woman, is reserved to each state acting through its state legislature or voters, and that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. federal law or treaty, or any state constitution may be interpreted to create any right to marriage or to the rights or incidents of marriage for groups of persons other than a married couple composed of one man and one woman or (ii) declaring that marriage in the United States shall be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that no state, nor the federal government, may recognize or grant the rights or incidents of marriage, to any group of persons other than a married couple composed of one man and one woman.
The second option would have been best, of course, but even back in 1998 or so it would have been difficult to obtain 2/3 in each house of Congress to send the amendment to the states. The first option surely would have been approved by Congress in the late 1990s and easily would have obtained ratification by state legislatures in 38 states, which would have resulted in same-sex “marriage” being legal only in states whose state legislature or voters approved it. Alas, we would not be able to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to approve the first option today, or in the foreseeable future (although I think that the 38-state-legislatures requirement would be doable).
It would be far easier to elect a conservative Republican president that would nominate, and a Republican Senate that would confirm, a conservative judge to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy when they retire or die (which likely will occur within the next 8 years for one or both or them), and then have Obergefell overturned when a state marriage restriction goes back before SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.