BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[mrjarrell]

Use google.

Meh.

Present your evidence, don't run away.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

As Cathy so eloquently asked, are we only afforded the rights specifically granted in the constitution? Was a black man's right to be free God given or was it granted by a constitutional amendment?

The 14th Amendment was enacted to give equal protection to people of all races. SSM was not contemplated during the enactment of the 14th. Either you believe in a living document which protects SSM or original intent, which does not grant equal protection to SSM. Which theory do you subscribe to?

 

[hornadylnl]

The 14th Amendment was enacted to give equal protection to people of all races. SSM was not contemplated during the enactment of the 14th. Either you believe in a living document which protects SSM or original intent, which does not grant equal protection to SSM. Which theory do you subscribe to?

So it was the government who gave black people rights. They weren't born with them.

 

[rambone]

It's alright to be on the moral high-horse and say everyone around you is doing it wrong... but society, as a whole, can't be cured by the few.

It's the route we're on, it's the path we've unwillingly taken. Morals and personal responsibility seem like a thing of the past.

Food for thought: maybe society never was the picturesque vision of morality we sometimes assume. Maybe there is no such thing as a "moral society" at all.

The central state grew stronger today.

All hail the state.

Its basically a given truth any day of the week. But I'm not sure it has anything to do with the SC declining to hear a case. Sometimes the Feds are supposed to butt out, and they appear to have done so on this issue.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

So it was the government who gave black people rights. They weren't born with them.

No. Black people had the natural rights, it just took the 14th Amendment for the government to finally recognize the rights. Do you believe in the living document theory or the original intent theory?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

As Justice Thomas so eloquently stated in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:

I join JUSTICE SCALIA'S dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

I recognize that as a Member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 562.

 

[hornadylnl]

No. Black people had the natural rights, it just took the 14th Amendment for the government to finally recognize the rights. Do you believe in the living document theory or the original intent theory?

The original intent was to deny people of their natural rights. The original intent was that the government had the power to deny rights. Is that the theory you support?

The living document theory is no better than original intent. But to demand original intent is to demand that everything that came with it.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The original intent was to deny people of their natural rights. The original intent was that the government had the power to deny rights. Is that the theory you support?

The living document theory is no better than original intent. But to demand original intent is to demand that everything that came with it.

Including the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's what the Amendments were for. That's why the 13th and the 14th Amendment were enacted. Your belief gives the Supreme Court the whimsical power to give and restrict rights according to the popular belief of the day. If the Supreme Court so declares tomorrow that the 2nd Amendment only gives militias' the rights to bear arms, then so it is the law, just like SSM.

 

[hornadylnl]

Including the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's what the Amendments were for. That's why the 13th and the 14th Amendment were enacted. Your belief gives the Supreme Court the whimsical power to give and restrict rights according to the popular belief of the day. If the Supreme Court so declares tomorrow that the 2nd Amendment only gives militias' the rights to bear arms, then so it is the law, just like SSM.

Your belief legitimizes 80 years of slavery and 100 years of institutionalized racism. Your belief is that if the American people and congress choose to repeal the second amendment, you would rather accept it than have a judge overturn it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Your belief legitimizes 80 years of slavery and 100 years of institutionalized racism. Your belief is that if the American people and congress choose to repeal the second amendment, you would rather accept it than have a judge overturn it.

Congress cannot repeal any amendment. They can do as they've done in the past: write the legislation and then offer it to the states for ratification. The states via their elected state legislators amend the Constitution

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Your belief legitimizes 80 years of slavery and 100 years of institutionalized racism. Your belief is that if the American people and congress choose to repeal the second amendment, you would rather accept it than have a judge overturn it.

So you have more faith in 5 out of 9 justices in upholding the Second Amendment than you do the difficulty of the amendment process?

 

[hornadylnl]

Congress cannot repeal any amendment. They can do as they've done in the past: write the legislation and then offer it to the states for ratification. The states via their elected state legislators amend the Constitution

18th and 21st Amendments.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

18th and 21st Amendments.

Had the necessary states not ratified the amendments, they'd just be relics resting on some shelf in the Library of Congress. Just like the others:

Unratified Amendments
Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these, including one of the twelve Bill of Rights amendments, are still technically open and pending. The other two amendments are closed and no longer pending, one by terms set within the Congressional Resolution proposing it (†) and the other by terms set within the body of the amendment (‡).

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hornadylnl]

So you have more faith in 5 out of 9 justices in upholding the Second Amendment than you do the difficulty of the amendment process?

No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?

Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?

Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.

I'm pretty sure I'm correct when I say the SCOTUS cannot overturn a duly enacted and ratified amendment. If it follows all the rules and becomes an amendment, it is Constitutional--whether it's moral or not. They are there to judge whether a law is constitutional. An amendment is constitutional by definition. We are supposed to be self governed. Sometimes we make mistakes but when we do, we do it through the parameters set by the US Constitution.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?

Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.

What you may be confusing is state constitutional amendments that get struck down as unconstitutional as violating the U.S. Constitution. This is because of the supremacy clause. The Supreme Court is bound to follow any new amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The new amendment to the Constitution alters/repeals the Constitution and any previous amendment in so much as they conflict. An example of this is the 21st Amendment; it was enacted to repeal the 18th Amendment.

So by your line of reasoning, you are still bound by the tyrrany of the majority and also the tyranny of the few. The purpose of the Amendments is that they are difficult to enact. A total of 27 Amendments have been enacted since 1789. That means 27 changes have been made to the Constitution in 225 years through the Amendment process. That is hardly to be under the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Pooty22]

Why'd you bother to grace us with your presence this time?

This is an important topic to me. I tend to see this as my generation's civil rights movement.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?

Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.

When the Supreme Court does not stick to the original intent of the Constitution, along with the good results you get cases such as Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). If the Supreme Court would have stuck with the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, the interment of the Japanese would have been found unconstitional. However, when you have a Court that morphs the Constitution with the social beliefs of the day, you get the cases such as Korematsu in addition to new rights being created by justices.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Why shouldn't a 13 year old girl be able to marry a 25 year old man, MrJarrel? Age is just a number.

Read your history. This was the norm for centuries.

 

[Arthur Dent]

It's not clear, nor is it good judicial policy. Essentially, it makes opinions and whims the standard to measure the Constitutionality of a law rather than historical precedent. Again, it's not like the law can't be changed.

I'll ask it again because no one has answered. Why not use the amendatory or legislative process like was done for civil rights based on race?​ If these issues are equivalent....why are SSM advocates so afraid of the citizens? I guess if the citizens of a state...the people do not want gay marriage, that's not a viewpoint worth being "reserved" to the people or "retained" by the people. Some people's opinions are worth protecting, and others, not.....whoever gets the judicial sympathy, they're the special ones. Nice.

We are a republic. Majority rules but the rights of the few are protected. Otherwise it just devolves into a mob rule. Don't like people having rights? There are other places in the world for you.