Gay marriage...law of the land.

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 121 - 140 of total 494 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jun 26, 2015 - 05:03pm PT

Norton, there is no intellectually honest argument for the other side, which is why the dissent spent four times as much space trying to obfuscate its intellectual bankruptcy. The only way the dissent could fit McCain Feingold into the strictures of the First Amendment was to pretend that corporations had no First Amendment rights, and that allowing them such rights was novel. The problem with that position is that it ignores New York Times COMPANY v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 255, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964) and the reasoning of such liberal icons as Justice Douglas that clearly found such a right for the corporation that publishes the New York Times.

Even weaker is the "clear and present danger" test. The cases preceding the dissent in Citizens United required a serious, credible threat of violence, not persuasion. See, e.g. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 587, 95 L. Ed. 1157 (1951)(upholding the Smith Act) ("The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government [sic], not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism" [emphasis supplied].

The rationale of the dissent in Citizens United represents the gravest danger inherent in the Judicial Branch. They wanted to uphold McCain-Feingold because they were opposed to the ideas that others may be able to transmit otherwise. The mental contortions in which they engaged to say that "Congress shall make no law" means "Congress may enact any law we like" should frighten anyone who believes that government should follow the rule of law.

John

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jun 26, 2015 - 05:14pm PT

The Fet, there is certainly some ambiguity in most legislation. There is no way any legislature can make a law so specific that a computer could apply it.

In the case of Obama/SCOTUS care, the basic language was in the statute, but so was contrary language. If the only part of the statute dealing with exchanges existed solely in the area of state-run exchanges, then the language which blah-blah quotes would be decisive. Interpreting just that section, without the rest of the statute, however, produces a result contrary to the rest of the statute.

There is a danger, however, in truly adding words, particularly "not" or "may," to legislation based solely on legislative history. For example, the legislative history of Section 361 of the Bankruptcy Code says that allowing a party an administrative expense can constitute adequate protection for using that creditor's collateral in bankruptcy. The language of the statute as enacted, however, changed the wording from "including allowance of an administrative expense" to "except allowance of an administrative expense."

The statute is diametrically opposed to the legislative history for a good reason: Congress decided that allowing adequate protection by administrative expense was a bad idea. The statute as enacted represented exactly what Congress intended.

To me, the SCOTUS got it right yesterday on the ACA. Standard canons of statutory construction say you can't take one sentence out of context with the rest of an act, any more than one could conclude that the New Testament advocates suicide because one sentence says that Judas went and hanged himself, and another sentence elsewhere had Jesus saying, in an entirely different context, "Go and do likewise."

John

10b4me

Social climber

Jun 26, 2015 - 05:25pm PT

Can someone strip in Cruz's face on Locker's ballcupping pic as the cupper to Hannity's cuppee?

That would be priceless. Here

Can't do that, but how is this?

Norton

Social climber

Jun 26, 2015 - 05:27pm PT

What did Obama have to do with this?

a LOT, obviously

he appointed both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan

both of whom voted with the majority to make same sex marriage legal in all 50 states

Norton

Social climber

Jun 26, 2015 - 05:38pm PT

John,

you took my question as yet another opportunity to repeat your support of CU

my mistake, for a brief moment I thought you were capable of analysis without bias

carry on

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Jun 26, 2015 - 05:57pm PT

That puppy's wee wee is in Ted Cruz's mouth

HaHa!

Happy Friday!

Stewart

Trad climber

Courtenay, B.C.

Jun 26, 2015 - 06:08pm PT

10b4me: By definition, poor decisions don't.

This wasn't. It was a GOOD decision, and a humane one.

Stewart

Trad climber

Courtenay, B.C.

Jun 26, 2015 - 06:25pm PT

10b4me: Sincerely glad to note that we are in agreement.

My apologies for missing your vastly amusing earlier masterpiece.

Stewart

Trad climber

Courtenay, B.C.

Jun 26, 2015 - 07:06pm PT

Norton: Great idea - nothing wrong with good vibes.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Jun 26, 2015 - 07:23pm PT

Reilly...What did Groucho have to do with this...?

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2015 - 07:46pm PT

Reilly...http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/01/20/state_of_the_union_obama_includes_transgender_and_bisexual_in_the_2015_address.html

"Toward the end of his address, Obama declared that Americans “condemn the persecution of women, or religious minorities, or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.” This marks the first time a president has used the words transgender and bisexual in a State of the Union address (in addition to the explict use of the term lesbian rather than the generic gay).* In 2010, Obama became the second president to use the word gay in a State of the Union address, regarding his efforts to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy. (The word made its first appearance in a State of Union address when President Bill Clinton used it in 2000 in reference to a hate crime.)"

rlf

Trad climber

Josh, CA

Jun 26, 2015 - 07:51pm PT

This whole thing is so simple it's stupid. In this country, you have constitutional rights, just as long as the religious Third Reich agrees with you.

Otherwise, you're f*#ked.

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

Jun 26, 2015 - 07:54pm PT

GOP candidates rip 'imperial court' for legalizing gay marriage
By Jonathan Easley
June 26, 2015, 10:55 am

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/246248-gop-candidates-rip-imperial-court

Republican presidential candidates are slamming the Supreme Court for legalizing same-sex marriage, calling Friday’s ruling an assault against Christian values and religious liberty.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has made religious liberty a major theme of his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, said the decision will “pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”
"The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution,” Jindal said in a statement. “Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed not to “acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch.”

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do — redefine marriage,” Huckabee said. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
He called the ruling the “irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states,” and said it would go down in history as “one of the court's most disastrous decisions.”

“The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny,” Huckabee said. “The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called the court’s decision a “grave mistake,” and called for an amendment to the Constitution to strip the courts of their authority on the issue.

“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker said.

“The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made,” he continued. “As we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas.”

Carly Fiorina said Friday’s ruling is “the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty,” declaring that the Supreme Court “did not and could not end this debate today.”

“I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage,” Fiorina said. “I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country. Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today's decision.”

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum vowed to keep fighting against the implementation of same-sex marriage, saying “the stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices."

“Leaders don't accept bad decisions that they believe harm the country, they have the courage of their convictions and lead the country down the better path,” Santorum said. “As president … I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution. And I will ensure that the people will have a voice in decisions that impact the rock upon which our civilization is built.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson had the most tempered responses of the 2016 hopefuls.

“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” Bush said. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.”

However, Bush added that he also believes “we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments.”

“In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side,” he said. “It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

Carson said that he strongly disagrees with the court’s decision, but supports same-sex civil unions.

“To me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form,” Carson said.

crankster

Trad climber

Jun 26, 2015 - 08:07pm PT

Craig, the ruling gives Republican prez candidates a way to both appease their base while not alienating the rest of the country. "I don't agree with the ruling, but it is now the law of the land and I will respect it."...smart politics.

rlf

Trad climber

Josh, CA

Jun 26, 2015 - 08:42pm PT

The only flaw in your logic is the lack of understanding that the "majority" isn't what counts.

Sad, but true.

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Jun 26, 2015 - 09:06pm PT

We'll just have to disagree about the power vested in SCOTUS. One player changing the outcome of a basketball game just does not rise to the level of a single Justice having the power to create law for the entire nation.

Do you disagree with the situation where a single vote in the House is sufficient to pass a bill and create a new law?

Do you disagree with the situation where a single judge is able to issue decisions about what is admissible in court, or even to issue decisions on an issue.

I hear your complaint, but give us a scenario in which it would be different or better?

T.J.

climber

Jun 26, 2015 - 09:14pm PT

"As president … I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution. And I will ensure that the people will have a voice in decisions that impact the rock upon which our civilization is built.”

Ummm...I believe there's language saying... separation of church and state somewhere???

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Jun 26, 2015 - 10:07pm PT

conservatives argue that there is no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, so it is not a valid legal position.

climbski2

Mountain climber

Anchorage AK, Reno NV

Jun 26, 2015 - 10:14pm PT

I can understand the discomfort with the idea that 9 people have the ability to vote and boom sweeping changes occur that have far reaching effects. Can nullify laws ..

That's serious power.

However do you have a better way to ensure that a majority does not inflict harm on a minority.

Structurally how would you protect those whom bad laws harm? How would you go about resolving contradictory laws?

The supreme courts gets thing wrong sometimes..

But today they did not.

What a long ridiculous battle this has been.. centuries I suppose. Decades of direct effort at least. Yet it seems that society does eventually get things more right over time.

I hope so.