G.O.P. Hopefuls Denounce Marriage Equality Ruling

its amazing how the left lies about eveything.

a. it should have been left to the states and the vote of the people. that is pro peoples rights... and anti big govt. its not even close to anti gay.

b. the earth has warmed since the last ice age. and as the paper cited by nitro said co2 may contribute to the orbital forcings which have warmed the earth... co2 may not. we need more data and science to know if man made co2 causes warming. If you have peer reviewed science let us know. Of course you have not produced any for years... because none exists other than failed models.

c. most of us do believe in aid to the poor. I give monthly. we just don't think you should be taxing us more... when the federal reserve already prints money like its water and floods the world with it. if you want to give more to the poor great.

d. military action... many of us have realized our politicians are so corrupt we can't support military action... by this govt unless it is truly for self defense. that is an old time liberal postions... what is yours?

e. drug laws... most of us libertarians think we should cease putting putting people in jail for soft drugs and support CA and Co telling the feds to jump in a lake.

f. abortion rights... yeah killing a baby as it is being born is something to be proud of. babies have rights too... being in favor of killing a fetus no matter where it is in the cycle is not some sort of morally superior position.

g. many of us believe taxes should be lowered. if you wish to raise taxes on the top .05% that is your call. how anyone with a brain thinks we need to raise taxes when we don't even know how much money the federal reserve creates is beyond me. until we know how much money is created... why not just spend it if you wish the govt to spend it... you don't need to raise my taxes... you have no idea how much inflation govt spending makes until you audit the money creators.

h. we believe in science... you believe in a fake consensus. many of believe in conservation not govt cap and trade.
 
jem said:
a. which is why I put the disclaimer in that this was the Supreme court so I don't feel like re litigating the issues. your response was anticipated and devoid of any real legal reasoning.

But, even if it is where the buck stops... the frequent critique of the Court is that it is no longer following the constitution... it has gone off the rails. (which is a critique the Court is historically open to... but in this case this crew of justices is a leftist's wet dream. When traditional jurisprudence is tossed out the window by Roberts or Kennedy they can always find 4 lefties will to vote leftist any time they wish. thank you to the poster who pointed out what Kagan wrote in 2009. that is the case in point )

b. Roberts rewrote obamacare law... if they wanted to put the state out of the marriage business they could have fashioned such a remedy. (I am not saying they have the authority... just as I don't think they had the authority to do what they did here... but this court does not seem to feel obliged to follow the Constitution or 2000 year old institutions.)

c. when someone extends the reach of the constitution beyond the very limited areas the left for the federal govt... the Constitution does not top states rights. The states consented to be governed by the Constitution... (I will add to this in the next post.)


d. what is it that you called yourself... a stalinist libertarian? You believe in big central govt. You are willing to see the IRS used against conservatives. That is not the fruit of libertarian thought... you are pre fascist. (although I am sure you would prefer a nice authoritarian over a mean one.)
More...

Huh? They followed the Constitution Precisely in Obergefell! What are you babbling about.

The case turned on Constitutional issues!!!

You learned in law school that those powers not given to the Federal Government in the Constitution are Reserved to the States.

BUT, BUT, BUT, the Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution. Any sentiment along the lines of "marriage regulation ought to be left up to the States" is TRUMPED by the Constitutional issue in this specific case!. You lose this one, Jem. Let's move on to something that's actually debatable.

P.S. the Court is not obliged to follow a two "thousand a year-old institution" when doing so would caused severe harm to our Constitutional Rights. You're just going to have to accept the reality that in the U.S. the Constitution, like it or not, Trumps the Bible. :p
 
jem said:
wow... piezoe that is top of the line sophistry.

1. Kagan said it does not exist.

2. presumably as a future supreme court justice she would have realized the 14th amendment is part of the constitution.



from the link above...

Over at the blog Legal Insurrection, law professor William Jacobson reminds us of this answer Elena Kagan gave to Senator John Cornyn in her confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General in 2009:

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Emphasis added. Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
More...

Jem, please don't cause me to call you an idiot. Of course Gay marriage is not in the constitution! Don't be silly.
 
jem said:
a. which is why I put the disclaimer in that this was the Supreme court so I don't feel like re litigating the issues. your response was anticipated and devoid of any real legal reasoning.

But, even if it is where the buck stops... the frequent critique of the Court is that it is no longer following the constitution... it has gone off the rails. (which is a critique the Court is historically open to... but in this case this crew of justices is a leftist's wet dream. When traditional jurisprudence is tossed out the window by Roberts or Kennedy they can always find 4 lefties will to vote leftist any time they wish. thank you to the poster who pointed out what Kagan wrote in 2009. that is the case in point )

b. Roberts rewrote obamacare law... if they wanted to put the state out of the marriage business they could have fashioned such a remedy. (I am not saying they have the authority... just as I don't think they had the authority to do what they did here... but this court does not seem to feel obliged to follow the Constitution or 2000 year old institutions.)

c. when someone extends the reach of the constitution beyond the very limited areas the left for the federal govt... the Constitution does not top states rights. The states consented to be governed by the Constitution... (I will add to this in the next post.)


d. what is it that you called yourself... a stalinist libertarian? You believe in big central govt. You are willing to see the IRS used against conservatives. That is not the fruit of libertarian thought... you are pre fascist. (although I am sure you would prefer a nice authoritarian over a mean one.)
More...
" the Constitution does not top states rights" Well, that's true, because States Rights only exist so far as they are not in conflict with the Constitution!

Where on Earth did you go to Law School? Every Law School in the Country that I am aware of teaches that where State laws are in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution trumps State law. The U.S. Constitution, signed by representatives of the various States, states clearly that the Constitution is "the Supreme law of the Land."

If you want to debate the Court and its Obama care decision, then there is room for spirited discussion. There isn't in the Gay Marriage issue. It is as straight forward an issue as will ever come before the Court. As you learned in Law School, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the Federal Government from favoring one religion over another. And the Fourteenth Amendment expands the Bill of Rights to the States and local governments.

The only objections to gay marriage that can be raised, are raised on on religious grounds, and the Constitution protects us from laws based on religious grounds. (Although in practice it does a very poor job of providing that protection.) Furthermore, the objections raised on religious grounds are non-substantive, because no one can show harm from someone else's gay marriage. Thus any objection on religious grounds can not stand. Objections based on tradition are also non-substantive for the very same reasons. They too, can not stand against the substantive constitutional issues.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose, Jem. Try to find yours, will'ya?
 
Last edited:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Otherwise, show me the definition of marriage in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top