PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage!!!!


Davian93
06-16-2015, 01:37 PM
Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/americas/with-little-fanfare-mexican-supreme-court-effectively-legalizes-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=3)


Huge, right???

Daekyras
06-16-2015, 03:22 PM
Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/americas/with-little-fanfare-mexican-supreme-court-effectively-legalizes-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=3)


Huge, right???

Not being an expert in the American legal system (or any legal system for that matter) does that automatically make it legal everywhere in the states??

If so- awesome.

Nazbaque
06-16-2015, 05:55 PM
Not being an expert in the American legal system (or any legal system for that matter) does that automatically make it legal everywhere in the states??

If so- awesome.

This was in Mexico, Daek. I too am not really sure about how much states can push against the supreme court, but they definitely don't have to obey the legal system of another country.

Davian93
06-16-2015, 06:02 PM
This was in Mexico, Daek. I too am not really sure about how much states can push against the supreme court, but they definitely don't have to obey the legal system of another country.

LOL...exactly. The US Supreme Court decision is expected to be published either next Monday or Monday, June 29th. It will almost certainly legalize same sex marriage nationally barring a stunning surprise.

Daekyras
06-16-2015, 07:44 PM
This was in Mexico, Daek. I too am not really sure about how much states can push against the supreme court, but they definitely don't have to obey the legal system of another country.

1. Mexico isn't in the United States? ?

Haha, I'm joking. It's just a good proportion of the mexican population that is living in the states. ;)

But also, are you sure it's Mexico? From all the news and political thrillers I've seen i didn't think they had any sort of legal system, let alone a supreme court!

Nazbaque
06-16-2015, 11:57 PM
1. Mexico isn't in the United States? ?

Haha, I'm joking. It's just a good proportion of the mexican population that is living in the states. ;)

But also, are you sure it's Mexico? From all the news and political thrillers I've seen i didn't think they had any sort of legal system, let alone a supreme court!

Well the headline says: "Mexican Supreme Court" so...

Khoram
06-17-2015, 03:43 AM
Well the headline says: "Mexican Supreme Court" so...

Ah, but you can't trust anything the media feeds you. Ergo, there may not be a Mexican Supreme Court.

Nazbaque
06-17-2015, 04:32 AM
Ah, but you can't trust anything the media feeds you. Ergo, there may not be a Mexican Supreme Court.

Now that is borderline conspiracy-theory-paranoia. If you'd just said that journalists are idiots and plain wrong about it, I might have agreed to the possibility. Now however I can't for fear of incouraging your delusions.

Khoram
06-17-2015, 04:50 AM
Now that is borderline conspiracy-theory-paranoia. If you'd just said that journalists are idiots and plain wrong about it, I might have agreed to the possibility. Now however I can't for fear of incouraging your delusions.

We're all delusional at one point. Does it matter, seeing as it doesn't really affect me? :p

Nazbaque
06-17-2015, 05:41 AM
We're all delusional at one point. Does it matter, seeing as it doesn't really affect me? :p

Oh it's all fun and games at first, but if you aren't careful you'll find yourself messing with red string and newspaper clippings in an attempt to prove that aliens are being mind controlled by girl scouts.

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2015, 06:55 AM
Oh it's all fun and games at first, but if you aren't careful you'll find yourself messing with red string and newspaper clippings in an attempt to prove that aliens are being mind controlled by girl scouts.
Do you have a better explanation for the anal probing?

I think that it is interesting that SCOTUS now has a chance to officially proclaim the USA "more backward than Mexico". Will they dare seize this opportunity?

Nazbaque
06-17-2015, 08:04 AM
Do you have a better explanation for the anal probing?

I think that it is interesting that SCOTUS now has a chance to officially proclaim the USA "more backward than Mexico". Will they dare seize this opportunity?

Gonzo, girl scouts do not have anal fetishes by default.

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2015, 08:10 AM
Gonzo, girl scouts do not have anal fetishes by default.
Then why do they become girl scouts at all? :confused:

Daekyras
06-17-2015, 08:27 AM
I think it's tasteless that you guys would willfully turn a thread supporting gay marriage toward probing like this. Shame on you. ;)

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2015, 08:45 AM
Considering the subject of the hijack, I suspect that "tasteless" is actually a good thing.

Edited to add:
I don't think anyone would have bothered hijacking it if there was any real chance that someone opposing gay marriage might have joined the debate. As it is, the entire debate here can be summed up with "good", which gets tedious pretty fast.

Nazbaque
06-17-2015, 09:07 AM
Well personally I've been thinking that the whole concept of marriage is outdated and should be abolished, but that probably doesn't count as specific opposition of gay marriage.

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2015, 09:54 AM
It could if you use that to oppose gay marriage now while preparing to also oppose ordinary marriage in the future. I've encountered a libertarian with a similar attitude, though with a slightly more convoluted argument. He was opposed to taxation, because taxation is backed up by (the threat of) use of force. Since marriage provided tax exemptions, marriage was wrong. So any extension to marriage was wrong too, and therefore he disapproved of gay marriage.
That was both the best and the weirdest objection I've ever encountered against gay marriage.

Ozymandias
06-17-2015, 03:47 PM
I sort of agree with that position.

The only real argument that homosexuals have (aside from the basic ones of human dignity) in favor of marriage rights is that the federal government subsidizes marriage. If they were to take away any tax benefits, I'd agree with the oft-repeated argument that the government shouldn't legislate or adjudicate in the realm of marriage.

Nazbaque
06-17-2015, 06:53 PM
It could if you use that to oppose gay marriage now while preparing to also oppose ordinary marriage in the future. I've encountered a libertarian with a similar attitude, though with a slightly more convoluted argument. He was opposed to taxation, because taxation is backed up by (the threat of) use of force. Since marriage provided tax exemptions, marriage was wrong. So any extension to marriage was wrong too, and therefore he disapproved of gay marriage.
That was both the best and the weirdest objection I've ever encountered against gay marriage.

Well the tax thing really wasn't on my list of what I believe to be wrong about marriage, but it does at least connect to some of the major points. To my mind people get married for so many really stupid reasons that show they don't really take it seriously or truly understand its meaning. This is in itself a good pro-gay-rights argument in the sense that half the people opposing it don't respect the concept of marriage so they shouldn't have a say in who gets to do it.

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2015, 04:01 AM
To my mind people get married for so many really stupid reasons that show they don't really take it seriously or truly understand its meaning.
Sometimes not all my suggestions are entirely practical. However, trusting politicians to get it right when passing a law against stupidity is not something I would consider smart.

Nazbaque
06-18-2015, 04:19 AM
Sometimes not all my suggestions are entirely practical. However, trusting politicians to get it right when passing a law against stupidity is not something I would consider smart.

I'm just analyzing the problem here. Besides if fixing the legal concept of marriage is considered a law against stupidity then there is a lot that fits under that heading and some of it has been at least close enough to right. Traffic laws for one.

Daekyras
06-18-2015, 04:41 AM
It could if you use that to oppose gay marriage now while preparing to also oppose ordinary marriage in the future. I've encountered a libertarian with a similar attitude, though with a slightly more convoluted argument. He was opposed to taxation, because taxation is backed up by (the threat of) use of force. Since marriage provided tax exemptions, marriage was wrong. So any extension to marriage was wrong too, and therefore he disapproved of gay marriage.
That was both the best and the weirdest objection I've ever encountered against gay marriage.

I know a few people with the ability to twist logic into knots like this. I always assumed It was an elaborate cover story to hide homophobia.

We recently passed a law to legalise same sex marriage.

There are 26 counties in Ireland and a yes vote was the magority view inall but one county (roacommon). Some people went around saying "we are the only normal county left" ewhen clearly they are the exception on this instance! They also don't realise how ridiculous and backwards they look.

Nazbaque
06-18-2015, 04:56 AM
I know a few people with the ability to twist logic into knots like this. I always assumed It was an elaborate cover story to hide homophobia.

We recently passed a law to legalise same sex marriage.

There are 26 counties in Ireland and a yes vote was the magority view inall but one county (roacommon). Some people went around saying "we are the only normal county left" ewhen clearly they are the exception on this instance! They also don't realise how ridiculous and backwards they look.

Normal? They used that word? Normal can never be the minority. They can dress their backward ideas in a lot of fancy words, but normal is definitely not one of them.

GonzoTheGreat
06-18-2015, 05:22 AM
Nitpick: being backwards actually is normal for human beings.

Southpaw2012
06-18-2015, 09:53 PM
The legal argument for and against gay marriage is really quite interesting. There's a chance that Chief Justice Roberts could vote in support claiming gender discrimination under Fourteenth Amendment.

Davian93
06-19-2015, 08:18 AM
The legal argument for and against gay marriage is really quite interesting. There's a chance that Chief Justice Roberts could vote in support claiming gender discrimination under Fourteenth Amendment.

I would be shocked if Roberts votes against same sex marriage...he's shown himself (Citzen United notwithstanding) to be pretty concerned with "his" court's reputation from a historic standpoint. He doesnt want to be remembered as "the next Taney".

Southpaw2012
06-19-2015, 08:51 AM
I would be shocked if Roberts votes against same sex marriage...he's shown himself (Citzen United notwithstanding) to be pretty concerned with "his" court's reputation from a historic standpoint. He doesnt want to be remembered as "the next Taney".


Agreed. My guess is it'll be 6-3 in favor.

Southpaw2012
06-19-2015, 08:55 AM
I would be shocked if Roberts votes against same sex marriage...he's shown himself (Citzen United notwithstanding) to be pretty concerned with "his" court's reputation from a historic standpoint. He doesnt want to be remembered as "the next Taney".



The arguments overall from a legal standpoint favor legalizing it, with the exception of Tenth Amendment / states rights. I don't think Roberts cared what people thought about Citizens United because it was the correct decision, as far as the law is concerned. Again, morals don't and shouldn't play into it like they shouldn't with gay marriage.

GonzoTheGreat
06-19-2015, 09:58 AM
Those judges are lawyers, aren't they?
If true, then morals don't apply to them anyway, so that would be a moot point.

Davian93
06-19-2015, 11:24 AM
The arguments overall from a legal standpoint favor legalizing it, with the exception of Tenth Amendment / states rights. I don't think Roberts cared what people thought about Citizens United because it was the correct decision, as far as the law is concerned. Again, morals don't and shouldn't play into it like they shouldn't with gay marriage.

Its a simple 14th amendment issue so it should be 9-0 but there is zero chance that Thomas/Scalia/Alito will rule in favor so it'll likely be 6-3 as you note. The anti-gay marriage arguments are all very weak. "Threaten traditional marriage?" What does that even mean?

GonzoTheGreat
06-19-2015, 11:39 AM
The anti-gay marriage arguments are all very weak.
I've heard there are some good ones. I haven't actually heard any good anti-arguments, but that may be because the liberal media don't mention them.

"Threaten traditional marriage?" What does that even mean?
It means that if gay marriage becomes legal, then everyone having a proper traditional marriage will get divorced. Of course, people with an improper marriage, or just a "not very traditional" marriage, will continue without even noticing that anything has changed.

Southpaw2012
06-19-2015, 12:29 PM
Its a simple 14th amendment issue so it should be 9-0 but there is zero chance that Thomas/Scalia/Alito will rule in favor so it'll likely be 6-3 as you note. The anti-gay marriage arguments are all very weak. "Threaten traditional marriage?" What does that even mean?

I think the idea of "traditional marriage" comes from the Biblical idea of marriage being between one man and one woman. It is intriguing to see the split in originalist thinking when it comes to gay marriage. There are many leading experts in originalist interpretation who think gay marriage should be legal through the Fourteenth Amendment. Personally, that is where I stand. I'm a Christian and I understand the traditionalist argument, but legally speaking I think the Fourteenth Amendment wins out. Scalia and Thomas look at it from a "what were the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thinking at the time they crafted it?" I agree with Scalia in many situations when he says that if people want to overrule something, say for example the Second Amendment, then they need to vote an amendment in doing just that. I agree with that, but in this case I think the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of those wanting to get married. I'm a state's rights guy though, so I don't necessarily disagree with those arguments. We shall see very soon.

Ozymandias
06-19-2015, 02:29 PM
Scalia and Thomas look at it from a "what were the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thinking at the time they crafted it?"

This is why originalist thinking is stupid. I guarantee you no one was thinking about the rights of people of the same sex to marry when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. I would stake a great deal of money and reputation on the fact that there is no evidence showing this was a consideration.

Thus... its an interpretation. Constitutional originalists basically utilize that argument to put a more socially acceptable spin on their own conservative, reactionary, bigoted arguments.

Davian93
06-19-2015, 02:32 PM
I think the idea of "traditional marriage" comes from the Biblical idea of marriage being between one man and one woman. It is intriguing to see the split in originalist thinking when it comes to gay marriage. There are many leading experts in originalist interpretation who think gay marriage should be legal through the Fourteenth Amendment. Personally, that is where I stand. I'm a Christian and I understand the traditionalist argument, but legally speaking I think the Fourteenth Amendment wins out. Scalia and Thomas look at it from a "what were the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thinking at the time they crafted it?" I agree with Scalia in many situations when he says that if people want to overrule something, say for example the Second Amendment, then they need to vote an amendment in doing just that. I agree with that, but in this case I think the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of those wanting to get married. I'm a state's rights guy though, so I don't necessarily disagree with those arguments. We shall see very soon.

I get the meaning but its making a theocratic argument in a secular court. Nobody wants to force churches to marry gay people so it doesnt fly with me. Also, if you feel your marriage is weakened by the fact that two lesbians or two gay men can get married, there are probably alot more issues going on in your marriage that actually need to be addressed. Its such a cop out weak "culture" argument when "culture" really just means "I find gay people icky and thus dont want them to have rights".

Scalia and Thomas are both complete idiots on this subject and Alito will very likely follow their lead. Scalia has basically said in the past that he just doesnt like gay people so he wont give them any rights that straights have.

Ivhon
06-19-2015, 02:57 PM
Scalia and Thomas are both complete idiots and Alito.

Fixed.

Kimon
06-19-2015, 03:04 PM
I get the meaning but its making a theocratic argument in a secular court. Nobody wants to force churches to marry gay people so it doesnt fly with me. Also, if you feel your marriage is weakened by the fact that two lesbians or two gay men can get married, there are probably alot more issues going on in your marriage that actually need to be addressed. Its such a cop out weak "culture" argument when "culture" really just means "I find gay people icky and thus dont want them to have rights".

Scalia and Thomas are both complete idiots on this subject and Alito will very likely follow their lead. Scalia has basically said in the past that he just doesnt like gay people so he wont give them any rights that straights have.

There is really only one legitimate argument concerning slippery slope, and that is whether this also doesn't just open, but perhaps makes inevitable the question of the legality of plural marriage. If govt can't define marriage narrowly as one man and one woman, so as to make legal same-sex marriages, it would seem to suggest, perhaps even necessitate, the allowance of consensual (which is why age of consent will still protect the illegality of underage marriages) polygamous marriages, whether they be polygynous, polyandrous, or mixed. I'm honestly not sure whether there would be legitimate legal grounds to continue to forbid these. My assumption would be that there would not.

Ozymandias
06-19-2015, 05:46 PM
There is really only one legitimate argument concerning slippery slope, and that is whether this also doesn't just open, but perhaps makes inevitable the question of the legality of plural marriage. If govt can't define marriage narrowly as one man and one woman, so as to make legal same-sex marriages, it would seem to suggest, perhaps even necessitate, the allowance of consensual (which is why age of consent will still protect the illegality of underage marriages) polygamous marriages, whether they be polygynous, polyandrous, or mixed. I'm honestly not sure whether there would be legitimate legal grounds to continue to forbid these. My assumption would be that there would not.

Why should there be?

Zombie Sammael
06-19-2015, 06:24 PM
Why should there be?

An interesting point that was made back when marriage equality for homosexuals was being passed in the UK is that trans people and polyamorous people seem to get thrown under the bus in order for same sex marriage equality to get through. It's sad how one group gets to be the vanguard at the expense of others.

GonzoTheGreat
06-20-2015, 03:52 AM
I think the idea of "traditional marriage" comes from the Biblical idea of marriage being between one man and one woman.
Citation needed.

I quite often see this kind of claim. Any time I challenge it, all I get is silence. I know that the Bible gives many examples of marriages of one man and a number of women (and their handmaidens, more often than not). But I have not ever found any place where marriage is explicitly restricted to just one pair.
So, can you enlighten me, and tell me where in the Bible I can find this supposedly Biblical idea of marriage?

Based on what I know of history, it seems more likely that the idea of marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman was introduced by the Greeks after the Macedonians conquered the Middle East for them.

There is really only one legitimate argument concerning slippery slope, and that is whether this also doesn't just open, but perhaps makes inevitable the question of the legality of plural marriage. If govt can't define marriage narrowly as one man and one woman, so as to make legal same-sex marriages, it would seem to suggest, perhaps even necessitate, the allowance of consensual (which is why age of consent will still protect the illegality of underage marriages) polygamous marriages, whether they be polygynous, polyandrous, or mixed. I'm honestly not sure whether there would be legitimate legal grounds to continue to forbid these. My assumption would be that there would not.
I think that it is a bit different: the main issue is not forbidding marriage, the main issue is having marriage as a "government provided standard contract available to people". For such a standard contract, you need a standard situation. Any two person combination could easily fit that description, but when the numbers increase, the potential complexity goes up enormously.

So the argument for making the two person contract simpler (by removing the somewhat arbitrary biological sex rule) is not at all the same as the argument that would be needed for providing a standard contract for 12 men and 17 women.

That doesn't mean that polygamy should be prohibited, but it does mean that the government could have a good reason for saying "sort it out yourself, YOYO".

Kimon
06-20-2015, 11:09 AM
Based on what I know of history, it seems more likely that the idea of marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman was introduced by the Greeks after the Macedonians conquered the Middle East for them.



Polygamy was very rare amongst the Greeks, rare too amongst the Macedonians, but the Macedonian royals did occasionally practice a mostly political form of polygamy. Philip, for instance, had many co-existing political marriages, often to cement political alliances with neighbors, as with his marriage to Olympias, an Epirote princess (Alexander's mom). HIs last marriage was with a younger Macedonian noblewoman, which was likely a mix of politics and attraction, but also directly lead to his assassination, as Olympias and Alexander were worried that he might be trying to create a full-blooded Macedonian heir and thus to supplant Alexander in the succession. Alexander did the same during his march through Asia, most notably marrying both Darius' daughter Stateira, and a Bactrian princess, Roxane. I can't think of many other examples of polygamy amongst the Greeks, though Cleopatra VII (the famous one) was technically married to both of her brothers, Ptolemies XIII & XIV, simultaneously. The same situation existed at least one other time in Ptolemaic Egypt - Cleopatra II with her brothers Ptolemy VI & VIII. In an added bit of incestuous creepiness. Cleopatra II's daughter, Cleopatra III (whose father was Ptolemy VI), married mom's other husband, her uncle/step-father, Ptolemy VIII.

It's safe to assume that no matter what else is legalized here, that these kind of marriages (except maybe in Kentucky and Mississippi) will never be legal here. Polygamy may be destined for legalization, and while there isn't a legitimate fear of it opening the door to incest, polygamy does raise legitimate fears of exploitative marriages and child-brides. It might seem an easy distinction, but how consenting is the sixteen year old child-bride of some domineering 60 year old Mormon fundamentalist?

GonzoTheGreat
06-20-2015, 12:36 PM
It might seem an easy distinction, but how consenting is the sixteen year old child-bride of some domineering 60 year old Mormon fundamentalist?
A simple solution to that would be not to allow Mormons to marry, wouldn't it?

Kimon
06-20-2015, 02:34 PM
A simple solution to that would be not to allow Mormons to marry, wouldn't it?

We did, or at least as it pertains to the matter of polygamy. Utah was only allowed statehood after the LDS Church (which essentially runs Utah) officially banned polygamy. The federal govt insisted that the ban be explicitly written into the Utah state constitution. The same demand was made of all other western states added to the Union after Utah out of the same fear of the preferred marriage practices of the Mormon Church.

GonzoTheGreat
06-21-2015, 03:41 AM
Problem solved. That was easy, wasn't it?

Southpaw2012
06-21-2015, 12:13 PM
This is why originalist thinking is stupid. I guarantee you no one was thinking about the rights of people of the same sex to marry when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. I would stake a great deal of money and reputation on the fact that there is no evidence showing this was a consideration.

Thus... its an interpretation. Constitutional originalists basically utilize that argument to put a more socially acceptable spin on their own conservative, reactionary, bigoted arguments.


Interpreting based on what the text says over what the text SHOULD say is the best form of interpretation. The liberal judges on the court, in particular Ginsburg and Breyer, make their rulings based on political position and what they think society should be like. There's a problem with that: not everyone thinks the same way they do. I favor Scalia's point of view because he goes by the language and what it says. It's not making a conservative spin. In fact, Scalia has gone against the conservative view WAY more than Ginsburg has gone against the liberal view. I'm perfectly okay if the ruling is a liberal one if it's based on the law. I feel though that the Supreme Court, at times, make their rulings to satisfy society, which is NOT their job.

Frenzy
06-21-2015, 03:11 PM
Oh it's all fun and games at first, but if you aren't careful you'll find yourself messing with red string and newspaper clippings in an attempt to prove that aliens are being mind controlled by girl scouts.

~whistles innocently~

Davian93
06-21-2015, 07:20 PM
Interpreting based on what the text says over what the text SHOULD say is the best form of interpretation. The liberal judges on the court, in particular Ginsburg and Breyer, make their rulings based on political position and what they think society should be like. There's a problem with that: not everyone thinks the same way they do. I favor Scalia's point of view because he goes by the language and what it says. It's not making a conservative spin. In fact, Scalia has gone against the conservative view WAY more than Ginsburg has gone against the liberal view. I'm perfectly okay if the ruling is a liberal one if it's based on the law. I feel though that the Supreme Court, at times, make their rulings to satisfy society, which is NOT their job.

That's a bit of crap though as Scalia only does that on certain things...on other issues, he tends to just make it up as he goes a long and he's gotten worse the longer he's been on the bench.

And, to be fair, regardless of being appointed by Clinton, Breyer isn't really that liberal. He's a very centrist, pragmatic jurist. Ginsburg is way more Liberal than Breyer.

The current Court makeup is 4 Ultra-Conservatives (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts), 1 Conservative (Kennedy) 1 Centrist (Breyer) and 3 Liberals (Sotomayer, Kagan, Ginsburg).

Breyer is only a Liberal in the sense that he's further to the left than Kennedy who is a "centrist" on this Court and a normal Conservative on any true political scale.

This makes sense though as our country is Center-Right to begin with and we don't really have a true Liberal party so our "liberal" Democratic party is a Center-Right party.

Bernie Sanders is an actual Liberal...Hillary is an average Democrat and she's very much Center Right just like her husband who won election by being Center Right and forcing the GOP to the hard right.

Southpaw2012
06-21-2015, 09:04 PM
That's a bit of crap though as Scalia only does that on certain things...on other issues, he tends to just make it up as he goes a long and he's gotten worse the longer he's been on the bench.

And, to be fair, regardless of being appointed by Clinton, Breyer isn't really that liberal. He's a very centrist, pragmatic jurist. Ginsburg is way more Liberal than Breyer.

The current Court makeup is 4 Ultra-Conservatives (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts), 1 Conservative (Kennedy) 1 Centrist (Breyer) and 3 Liberals (Sotomayer, Kagan, Ginsburg).

Breyer is only a Liberal in the sense that he's further to the left than Kennedy who is a "centrist" on this Court and a normal Conservative on any true political scale.

This makes sense though as our country is Center-Right to begin with and we don't really have a true Liberal party so our "liberal" Democratic party is a Center-Right party.



Bernie Sanders is an actual Liberal...Hillary is an average Democrat and she's very much Center Right just like her husband who won election by being Center Right and forcing the GOP to the hard right.

You should read Scalia and Garner's book on interpretation. It's not what people generally think. Conservatives tend to rule pro-law enforcement and Scalia usually goes against that. For example, Fourth Amendment issues. I don't agree at all with Breyer's style. Using statistics to make a ruling is not how law is to be interpreted. Statistics should be used when making a law, not interpreting a law. A law should be interpreted by what it says. If republicans or democrats don't like it, vote people into Congress who will draft new laws or amendments.

Davian93
06-21-2015, 09:06 PM
Scalia is generally ranked as the most conservative Justice on any scale...with Thomas just after him slightly to the left somehow. There are, of course, exceptions to this just like Kagan & Sotomayer can occasionally rule on something in a way that seems conservative but he's very much the far Right wing of jurisprudence.

GonzoTheGreat
06-22-2015, 03:51 AM
The current Court makeup is 4 Ultra-Conservatives (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts), 1 Conservative (Kennedy) 1 Centrist (Breyer) and 3 Liberals (Sotomayer, Kagan, Ginsburg).
Scalia, Alito and Sotomayer sound sort of right, but I have my doubts about the others. Are you sure they are on the Mexican Supreme Court?

Davian93
06-22-2015, 08:19 AM
There's a good chance we'll get some major decisions today...they always publish them on Mondays in June so its either today or next monday for both the ACA Mandate and Same-Sex Marriage among others. Those are probably the two most known pending decisions.

Ozymandias
06-22-2015, 04:51 PM
Interpreting based on what the text says over what the text SHOULD say is the best form of interpretation.

I disagree. The world changes. The Constitution was written, in large part, by men who owned slaves, a fact which was understood by many contemporaries to be unethical and evil even at the time.

It is outrageous to think that anyone in this country should be denied rights based on their skin color or sexual orientation, and yet, that is precisely the way in which the country was run for many years, up to and including today. Mind you, it is equally clear that the vast majority of Americans believed blacks to be inferior, even at the conclusion of the Civil War, and would have been aghast at the idea of, say, interracial marriage. The idea that anyone could think to legislate against interracial marriage is laughable today. So in issues of social justice especially, it makes perfect sense to adapt laws, because social opinions change and as long as you are being less restrictive and not more, you aren't curtailing anyone's rights.

When Congress was authorized to declare war on enemies foreign and domestic, there was no possibility that the human race could be obliterated in the time it took to perform a roll call. When the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce was established, no one could even conceive of the concept of the internet, let alone the technology necessary to achieve something of the sort.

Originalist interpreters of the Constitution (or any law) are arguing that we should judge current litigation through the lens of a world that is, in the most fundamental cases, over 200 years old. That just does not make sense, on any level. No serious person can make the case that the drafters of this legislation could possibly have foreseen what the world would become, and thus, it is similarly impossible to argue that we should consider their intent. The spirit of the law should be obeyed, not the letter.

Mind you, the fact that originalist and conservative interpretations are those which are most often offered in support of bigotry does not help. Is there a single instance in this country where reactionaries or conservatives have been on the right side of history in matters of social justice?

Southpaw2012
06-22-2015, 09:59 PM
Scalia is generally ranked as the most conservative Justice on any scale...with Thomas just after him slightly to the left somehow. There are, of course, exceptions to this just like Kagan & Sotomayer can occasionally rule on something in a way that seems conservative but he's very much the far Right wing of jurisprudence.

I strongly strongly disagree there. I would even argue that Scalia isn't even second most conservative. Perhaps in overall ideology, but I'm talking strictly Supreme Court decisions.

Rumor is that King v. Burwell (Obamacare case) opinion will be issued on Friday and then the same sex marriage opinion will be issued on Monday.

Davian93
06-22-2015, 10:02 PM
I strongly strongly disagree there. I would even argue that Scalia isn't even second most conservative. Perhaps in overall ideology, but I'm talking strictly Supreme Court decisions.

Rumor is that King v. Burwell (Obamacare case) opinion will be issued on Friday and then the same sex marriage opinion will be issued on Monday.

I'm just going off of most SCOTUS ratings where he scores in the single digits of a 0 on the 0-100 (Conservative-Liberal scale).

The court will probably rule 5-4 against the Mandate due to stupid wording and 6-3 for Same-Sex marriage.

My guesses anyway.

Southpaw2012
06-22-2015, 10:05 PM
I disagree. The world changes. The Constitution was written, in large part, by men who owned slaves, a fact which was understood by many contemporaries to be unethical and evil even at the time.

It is outrageous to think that anyone in this country should be denied rights based on their skin color or sexual orientation, and yet, that is precisely the way in which the country was run for many years, up to and including today. Mind you, it is equally clear that the vast majority of Americans believed blacks to be inferior, even at the conclusion of the Civil War, and would have been aghast at the idea of, say, interracial marriage. The idea that anyone could think to legislate against interracial marriage is laughable today. So in issues of social justice especially, it makes perfect sense to adapt laws, because social opinions change and as long as you are being less restrictive and not more, you aren't curtailing anyone's rights.

When Congress was authorized to declare war on enemies foreign and domestic, there was no possibility that the human race could be obliterated in the time it took to perform a roll call. When the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce was established, no one could even conceive of the concept of the internet, let alone the technology necessary to achieve something of the sort.

Originalist interpreters of the Constitution (or any law) are arguing that we should judge current litigation through the lens of a world that is, in the most fundamental cases, over 200 years old. That just does not make sense, on any level. No serious person can make the case that the drafters of this legislation could possibly have foreseen what the world would become, and thus, it is similarly impossible to argue that we should consider their intent. The spirit of the law should be obeyed, not the letter.

Mind you, the fact that originalist and conservative interpretations are those which are most often offered in support of bigotry does not help. Is there a single instance in this country where reactionaries or conservatives have been on the right side of history in matters of social justice?

Again, I point you all to Scalia and Garner's (who is a liberal) book on interpretation. It will make better sense then. Judges are there to interpret the law, not create it, as is the job of the legislators. The problem with the liberal judges philosophy is they rule based on societal desires of the time. That doesn't make sense because not everyone has the same desires or wants. It's not the judges job to decide that. It is the job of the people to elect those in office to create bills that will satisfy their needs. The originalist interpretation style, and not all are the same, makes the most sense because it is a consistent way of interpreting. You may not like it, but it's not the judges job to rule based on what people want.

Many of the founders tried to get rid of slavery and it failed by one vote. In no way am I being apologetic about them, because slavery is a historical disgrace and they failed to get rid of it, but you have to remember something: what would have happened if they had gotten rid of it right after the Constitution was ratified? It would have likely torn the country apart because there were many people who depended on it. I don't think they were right for not getting rid of it, but I can understand why they might have been hesitant in ways other than the economics of it.

Southpaw2012
06-22-2015, 10:07 PM
I'm just going off of most SCOTUS ratings where he scores in the single digits of a 0 on the 0-100 (Conservative-Liberal scale).

The court will probably rule 5-4 against the Mandate due to stupid wording and 6-3 for Same-Sex marriage.

My guesses anyway.


I completely agree with you here. 6-3, with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in the dissent. I could see Ginsburg writing the majority, or possibly the chief. Chief Justice Roberts just wrote today's majority in the taking clause case. Great opinion, by the way if you're interested. The dissent by Sotomayor was awful, and I'm not saying that based on ideology at all. She completely overlooked some crucial points.

Davian93
06-22-2015, 10:09 PM
Marshall would disagree on that subject and his Court was the most respected in its history...and probably the most important followed closely by the Warren Court. Both were activist in that sense of the word.

Scalia rules far more based on his personal opinions than through any real Conservative interpretation of the Constitution...he's a quite a smart guy though so he's good at making it sound legit. Really quite brilliant in many ways regardless of how much I disagree with may of his opinions.

Davian93
06-22-2015, 10:12 PM
Here's a chart that agrees a bit more with you as it puts Scalia slightly to the left of Thomas and Alito...at least now. He has moved slightly to the left over the years but he's still hard, hard on the right side of the fence overall:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/26/the-supreme-courts-rightward-shift-or-not-in-two-charts/

Southpaw2012
06-22-2015, 10:19 PM
Here's a chart that agrees a bit more with you as it puts Scalia slightly to the left of Thomas and Alito...at least now. He has moved slightly to the left over the years but he's still hard, hard on the right side of the fence overall:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/26/the-supreme-courts-rightward-shift-or-not-in-two-charts/

I honestly think it's based on his Fourth Amendment views. Conservatives are generally more "pro-lawenforcement" in terms of thinking that cops should have a little more free rein, while Scalia has ruled against that quite a lot in the past. As for his stance on gay marriage, private property, and religion, definitely conservative.

Davian93
06-22-2015, 11:01 PM
I honestly think it's based on his Fourth Amendment views. Conservatives are generally more "pro-lawenforcement" in terms of thinking that cops should have a little more free rein, while Scalia has ruled against that quite a lot in the past. As for his stance on gay marriage, private property, and religion, definitely conservative.

I would argue that he's very much for the Imperial Presidency too for the most part.

GonzoTheGreat
06-23-2015, 04:25 AM
Is there a single instance in this country where reactionaries or conservatives have been on the right side of history in matters of social justice?
Maybe in the case of eugenics. If true, then it was mainly because most of the extreme left wing was in favor of it. However, what I've found so far on the subject suggests that hardly anyone in the USA (apart from the minorities who got targeted with it, presumably) opposed this, so I'm not actually sure that reactionaries did oppose it in noticeable numbers.

Southpaw2012
06-23-2015, 10:46 AM
Can't beat this though!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-odd-couple-20150622-story.html#page=1

Love it

The article quotes a Duke law professor who said that if Scalia had his way, he would destroy equality and all that mumbo jumbo and that is completely false. Again, like a Constitutional Law professor I had in law school, he is misstating what Scalia's interpretation style is. He needs to be pointed to, and read, Scalia and Garner's book on interpretation. The article is from the LA Times, which is has about as liberal of a slant as MSNBC, so it's not surprising, but I think people need to actually read Scalia's opinions and learn about his way of interpreting before accusing him of stuff he has been accused of before. Not all of his opinions are right (in my opinion) but they make sense when interpreting the law and are usually accurate.

""Later, when Ginsburg insisted the court's constitutional decisions should reflect changing social attitudes, Scalia objected. "We're not going to agree on this, Ruth," he said.""

Just reiterating that it's not up to the court to rule based on changing social attitudes, but Congress job to create laws.

Davian93
06-23-2015, 11:23 AM
Nobody has a liberal stant to the extent of MSNBC...They're on the left side of the fence but they're at least still in the yard. MSNBC is off in the woods somewhere looking for truffles. Foxnews is in the woods on the opposite side of the yard doing much teh same thing.

Just reiterating that it's not up to the court to rule based on changing social attitudes, but Congress job to create laws.

I would disagree...but then I subscribe to Ginburg's interpretation there so that's not a surprise.


EDIT: Great article BTW...

Davian93
06-23-2015, 11:36 AM
I think Thurgood Marshall put it best "Do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Kimon
06-23-2015, 12:05 PM
Again, I point you all to Scalia and Garner's (who is a liberal) book on interpretation. It will make better sense then. Judges are there to interpret the law, not create it, as is the job of the legislators. The problem with the liberal judges philosophy is they rule based on societal desires of the time. That doesn't make sense because not everyone has the same desires or wants. It's not the judges job to decide that. It is the job of the people to elect those in office to create bills that will satisfy their needs. The originalist interpretation style, and not all are the same, makes the most sense because it is a consistent way of interpreting. You may not like it, but it's not the judges job to rule based on what people want.



What are your thoughts then on say Brown vs the Board of Ed? Was it liberal activism? If so, how do you account for the fact that the justices voted 9-0 against Topeka? It made law, by making segregation unconstitutional, yet that was done upon the basis of an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, specifically of the Equal Protection Clause therein. The distinction here isn't as clear as you want to assert. Both sides are interpreting existing law, and with great consequence for the future of those laws. On the right, at times this leads to calumny of leftist activism, just as we on the left at times (perhaps most notably with Citizens United) charge the right with its own activism. It is not that one side is guilty of this, both are. There is a reason why the selection process for these justices is so politically charged, and certainly your must recognize that the contempt that you display for the three (perhaps 4, though Breyer really is a centrist) progressive justices of this court is mirrored by the contempt that we have for the three most conservative of its justices.

Nor is that truly anything new. The right clearly displayed contempt in the past for Warren, though he was perhaps our greatest Chief Justice. Or consider our most despicable president, Andrew Jackson, and the contempt he showed for his own court vis-a-vis their attempt to defend justice, and the Indians, against his own criminality. How about FDR and his foolish suggestion of packing the court? This is a very old concept, and one that has been seen on both sides of the aisle. Let's not pretend that the justices are something other than political figures, just political figures that, due to a perhaps unfortunate mistake(s) in their creation, are in power for far too long, and are unelected. Much the same was once true of senators. Perhaps it is far since needed for a similar change, for direct election, and for a limited term, of supreme court justices. It wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would at least make them both more answerable to the public, and allow for their removal when judged by the populace as deserving of that removal. I certainly would welcome the chance to expunge Scalia and Thomas from the court, just as you would likely welcome the same opportunity for some of their colleagues.

As for just how conservative Scalia is, ask yourself this, are you really confident that if Brown was decided again today, in a vacuum, with no prior precedence, that the vote from this court would really still be that same 9-0 from Warren's back in 1954? I am not.

Davian93
06-23-2015, 12:21 PM
How about FDR and his foolish suggestion of packing the court?

His most damning moment...hubris run amok and a great example of why checks and balances are important as even a great man trying to do what he saw as the greater good makes mistakes.

As for just how conservative Scalia is, ask yourself this, are you really confident that if Brown was decided again today, in a vacuum, with no prior precedence, that the vote from this court would really still be that same 9-0 from Warren's back in 1954? I am not.


Thomas, at least, would say its a States rights issue and vote against it so the vote would at least be 8-1. Scalia would probably follow him there given his own views on the subject.

GonzoTheGreat
06-24-2015, 04:32 AM
Nobody has a liberal stant to the extent of MSNBC...They're on the left side of the fence but they're at least still in the yard. MSNBC is off in the woods somewhere looking for truffles. Foxnews is in the woods on the opposite side of the yard doing much teh same thing.
I'm not sure that it is truffles which Foxnews is looking for.

Ozymandias
06-24-2015, 09:40 AM
As for just how conservative Scalia is, ask yourself this, are you really confident that if Brown was decided again today, in a vacuum, with no prior precedence, that the vote from this court would really still be that same 9-0 from Warren's back in 1954? I am not.

Well this goes to my point about originalist interpretation. The people who wrote the 14th Amendment were all pretty clearly in favor of the idea that blacks were inferior, biologically, to white people. There is a very strong case to be made, based on that interpretation and precedent decisions, that the court made the wrong decision. The difference being, of course, that people had since realized that the opinions of the mid 19th century were based on pseudo-science and didn't need to be given any weight.

Scalia and Thomas and their ilk have no special knowledge of what the crafters of past law thought. Thus they are interpreting to the same extent as liberal judges. The difference is, as with most conservative positions, that they are giant hypocrites about it. No one in 1790 would have considered a corporation a person, and yet somehow that has been a recent ruling of the court. Liberal judges are at least honest that they seek to make legal decisions that will positively impact society and extend rights. Conservative judges on today's court tend to rule in the most reactionary manner possible and then hide behind the prima facie bogus excuse that they are just being true to the text of the laws.

GonzoTheGreat
06-24-2015, 10:30 AM
Yet if they were true to the "text of the law" then the 2nd Amendment would only apply to people who are in the National Guard. But the gun manufacturers don't like that, so the militia clause is just a dead letter.