06-26-2015, 02:11 PM | #301 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I don't mind judicial activism but I do worry that there is confusion about whether marriage is a religious or a social institution, and if it is left alone, it will lead to conflict somewhere down the line.
Overall it's positive and I like how civil rights have expanded. I think that this is one of those rare cases where something can be problematic and not really the right decision in an academic sense but in a practical sense exactly what was needed. This will change a lot of things for the better in our daily life. And just between you and me, I think the Constitution will be fine. It's the Church that's somewhat threatened by the state stepping on its toes a bit.
__________________
|
06-26-2015, 02:16 PM | #302 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
On the one hand, I sympathize with Roberts' position that this ruling undermines states' sovereignty and the separation between the federal government and state governments. ("The Constitution also maintains the sovereignty of each state." "The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces this idea of parallel sovereignty, declaring that the powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states." - Wikipedia)
On the other hand, I think we all know that states' sovereignty have been undermined going back to FDR at a bare minimum and Lincoln at a more reasonable minimum. "Is America a confederacy of allied member states? Or is it a single entity akin to European nations?" was a question answered by Union forces 150 years ago, whether one likes or agrees with the answer or not. So while I do sympathize with Roberts' point that this ruling further undermines what the Forefathers intended America to be, I disagree with his assertion that this ruling is the Great Upset, the monster which will transmogrify America from an 18th century idyll to a 21st century dystopia. If that is to happen, it's certainly thanks to gears already in motion long before gay men could even publicize their sexuality, much less get married in public.
__________________
|
06-26-2015, 02:29 PM | #303 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
Roberts seems to be acting like this is some revolutionary change in how the Court operates. From what I can tell this kind of thing is no different from SCOTUS taking sodomy laws off the books in the 70's or something like Roe v. Wade.
|
06-26-2015, 02:43 PM | #304 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
In other news: Quote:
__________________
|
||
06-26-2015, 03:50 PM | #305 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
My sister gave me the news while we were waiting to get into Steak N' Shake today and while I was quiet about it because my rather conservative mother was nearby, in my head it was a huge party. I'm also glad that opponents of gay marriage are now trying to actually make a rational legal argument for their stance. While I don't agree with them, it's a breath of fresh air from all the Bible beaters and dictionary huggers. Of course, there now remains the issue of dealing with discrimination, as states alarmingly lack preventative measures in that department, but I'm sure that it can get done. For today, however, it's a great day.
__________________
|
06-26-2015, 04:42 PM | #306 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Scalia's argument sounds like "framer's intent" which is not something that should be endorsed. It's a concept that leads to judicial activism by inferring whatever evidence one wants to support a view.
True framer intent was that the founding fathers intended the constitution to be updated and relevant to ever changing political climates, not trying to stem those climates using the constitution. Saying gay marriage was not original intent is just as bad as saying the 14th amendment permits abortion because it specifically references having to be born.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
06-26-2015, 05:10 PM | #307 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
Roberts notes this in his dissent, but for quite some time the American people have made a habit of turning to the judiciary to get legislation they don't like tossed out -- regardless of its legality within the greater framework of the law -- rather than reserving judicial action only for those instances where they believe the law was not upheld or was misapplied. Some will say that that's precisely what happened here -- the 14th Amendment was not properly being applied before today, they will say, and that that's what this case was all about. Roberts & Co., for their parts, see it differently: they feel that litigants and their supporters ought to have pursued change through legislative reform (i.e. getting local governments to pass new laws or to amend old ones, making it so that SSM is legal) rather than through judicial strongarming of the legislature. Whether you agree with his position or not is besides the point: what he's saying is something which has been in the dialogue for every gay wedding cake feud and every Prop 8 discussion of the past five years. "Assuming gay marriage is right just for the sake of argument, is the best way to go about securing it via the courts or via the legislature?" Maybe not in LGBT circles so much, where the pessimism with the legislature was high(er) and the desire for justice great(er), but certainly in Christian bakery, ministry, etc. circles. "If they want it this way, they have to go through the proper legal channels. A minority should not be using the Supreme Court to overrule the democracy of a majority." I dunno. Shit gets complicated very quickly. Especially when you start analogizing with slavery. (E.g. does a "will of the majority" argument really hold up when that will calls for slave-holding rights?) All I can say is, agree or disagree with him, Roberts' views are by no means new.
__________________
|
|
06-26-2015, 07:17 PM | #308 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
The Supreme Court could simply have refused to take the case understanding that, however. It strikes me that Obama's appointees did not really care for the precedent ramifications of what Roberts is talking about in forcing the Court to entertain this case, which is stupid, immature and short sighted.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
06-26-2015, 09:43 PM | #309 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
__________________
|
06-26-2015, 09:55 PM | #310 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
I'm very happy that this has happened, though I do wonder...for those of you who know this stuff, is there any way a state could theoretically fight this?
__________________
Spoiler: show |
|
06-26-2015, 09:59 PM | #311 |
I make cryin' babies weep
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,243
|
Although the consequences would possibly be much greater this time around, Alabama might try to do its thing again where even if the Supreme Court demands the state to give out SSM licenses, the Alabama state judges or just the people in charge of that just refuse to do it and order it not to be done.
__________________
|
06-26-2015, 10:02 PM | #312 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
I think its also possible that it could come back to the Supreme Court again later on, but its been a long time since I've studied the Judicial System.
__________________
|
06-26-2015, 11:06 PM | #313 | |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
Quote:
They'd probably have to see an entirely different case for that to happen. I don't know that Double Jeopardy applies here necessarily but I think it would be tough to overturn this ruling unless someone else manages to sue their way to the Supreme Court again, and I think it's gone past the point of no return at this stage. |
|
06-26-2015, 11:58 PM | #314 |
Volcano Badge
|
|
06-27-2015, 08:05 AM | #316 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
|
06-27-2015, 09:08 AM | #317 | |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Quote:
Exactly! This is why when a couple gets divorced or a parent dies, the children are instantly sent to foster care. Children need both a male and female role model in their lives in order to become good people and productive members of society, which is why single parenting is strictly prohibited. >"And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment," he continued. >On Thursday Paxton told county clerks to wait for his directive following the Supreme Court ruling, indicating that he was considering defying a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
__________________
|
|
06-27-2015, 09:26 AM | #318 |
プラスチック♡ラブ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
|
Some counties in Mississippi and Alabama are refusing to marry anyone now that everyone can get married lol
|
06-27-2015, 12:54 PM | #319 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Hot. This is the best.
Quote:
From what I heard in school, gay marriage was always seen as a gateway issue preventing legal polygamy and incest in the US, because there are equally infirm arguments against both as there are against gay marriage. Even as support for LGBT grew, there was always this trepidation at seeing incest/polygamy make its way through the courts someday. This idea may sound surprising, but it's the same domino theory that lead to Korea/Vietnam: we can't let the status quo change at all, because it'll change completely. The SC has no obligation to review the judgement of lower courts unless a writ of certiori is filed, which requires four justices. Even then, what they review can be easily applied just to the state in question, broader inferences about all fifty states are not necessary. So, they absolutely didn't make any effort to disguise that this was activist. Also, the SC doesn't have to worry about what the public thinks. The public has no role in electing justices so they have little to fear. The main threat is Congress, which can outright ignore SC rulings because the SC has no enforcement agency, and the President who with the aid of Congress can adjust the SC size to sway opinion in favour of his policies. Note that I'm just taking this approach because it was brought up. Activism and framer's intent are generic/cliched complaints to all sorts of cases for unhappy justices. I'm highly suspicious then that the dissents were so non-unique to this particular case.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
|
07-18-2015, 05:03 PM | #320 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
__________________
|
07-18-2015, 05:07 PM | #321 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
I do wonder if Trump is going to sink the Republican ship and give the Democrats a win. Then again this is just ill-informed political talk.
__________________
|
07-18-2015, 05:23 PM | #322 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
That stated, we will have to see whether his latest comments will torpedo his popularity with
__________________
|
|
07-18-2015, 05:28 PM | #323 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Donald Trump won't get the nomination. He will make a shitload of money off the publicity for his run, which is almost certainly all he wants. Iirc he got paid an enormous amount of money to keep him on The Apprentice when he started publically considering running for 2012.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
07-18-2015, 08:20 PM | #324 |
You sayin' I like dudes?
|
I haven't actually researched kt, but from what I've been seeing I wouldn't be surprised if he's losing money. A lot of businesses have pulled support from his brand.
|
07-19-2015, 01:48 AM | #325 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I actually believe that Trump is looking for people to call him an idiot because he's probably surrounded by people who will echo his every statement and tell him that he's right, everything he wants to hear, etc. He wants criticism, obviously!
__________________
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|