[Tom Bishop]

I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

I respectfully dissent.

Yes, there was a vote, and those who disagreed expressed disagreement. Are you going to start responding to points anytime soon?

There was a vote, yes, however, the Justices were not acting as Judges answering legal questions, but were on a path to achieve a desired goal.

Justice Scalia clarifies:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html#document/p69

Judges are selected precisely for their skills as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast states. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner, or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that compromises one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

[Tom Bishop]

Justice Scalia continues with some good points:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds -- minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly -- could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their "reasoned judgement". These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres with what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgement of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

[Rama Set]

Like SexWarrior said, it is hardly surprising that the dissenters dissent. In regards to the idea that the Supreme Court is wielding power improperly I would refer you to your viewpoints on democracy: the Supreme Court justices are ultimately approved by an elected body of the people, for the people, by the people; it is democratically arrived at. If you do not like this, you can join an ideologically pleasing party and try to change it but this is your government working as intended.

Ultimately the judiciary is not a branch that is even intended to make decisions that are representative of the people's wishes, they are there to interpret the meaning, implicit and explicit, of the constitution and statutes of the country. They ultimately serve justice first and the people second.

[Rama Set]

Justice Scalia continues with some good points:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds -- minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly -- could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their "reasoned judgement". These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres with what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgement of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

Justice Scalla has written an appalling rationale replete with appeals to authority and popularity. He is basically implying that notions of justice do not change with time which is absurd. If you believe that that is the case then you are denying the progression of the rule of law from barbarism to the fairly civil society we live in today.

[Pete Svarrior]

There was a vote, yes, however, the Justices were not acting as Judges answering legal questions

Yes, they were acting as the Supreme Court. Jesus, Tom, you're really trying too hard there.

[xasop]

Tom has finally stopped responding to me. I guess that's one way to resolve a double standard.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

It should have been left to the States. By forcing the States to lose (more) of their Sovereignty, the Federal Government has just proven what a dictatorial organisation it is. It really needs to be abolished as soon as possible. It is no longer serving any purpose. It needs to be replaced by either nothing at all, or a weak confederal system.

The Constitution specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the Government is to be assumed by the States. Marriage is not a power that is granted to the Federal Government. In fact, it is explicitly denied it. It is the State, not the Federal Government, that issues licenses to marry. Ergo, it is the State that should be making law on who can or cannot marry.

Well, first its queers. Next it will be plural marriage (this is already being discussed by some jurists). Eventually it will be your cat. Prepare for the deluge.

[garygreen]

I don't understand how permitting same-sex marriages to receive the same federal marriage benefits as traditional marriages is paying people to be gay.

As I understand it, dependency exemptions are a subset of federal marriage benefits that only extend to married couples who have children.  If I get traditional-married and don't have any children, I'll receive all of the federal marriage benefits (and tax deductions) except for the ones related to actually having a child.

In that regard, my traditional marriage isn't any different than a same-sex marriage.  I get some benefits related to being married, but none for the children I don't have.  I don't get why same-sex couples are less deserving of the benefits related to marriage or why they shouldn't receive the same adoption benefits.

It's still 1850, right?

No.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Even if I had said that, which I didn't, perhaps it should be. The fact is, this country long ago betrayed the nature upon which it was founded. The only thing left for it to do is to hurry the hell up and blow itself to smithereens, so the rest of us, who know what we're about, can rebuild it the way it was meant to be. The libtards have destroyed the place. I just wish they would get on with eliminating themselves so the rest of us don't have to put up with their sorry asses. Of course, if I were made dictator for a a year, I could resolve the problem.

Anyone who was in any gang over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Anyone who crossed the border illegally over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Anyone who committed any offence with a weapon and was over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Any person cought "tagging" a piece of property would be arrested. If the sign was determined to be a gang sign the tagger would be shot.

The police would not issue warning shots. If two people were committing a crime, your warning shot would be the other guy dropping dead next to you. That would be your recommendation to stop what you were doing if you cared to live to be arrested.

For a solid year, the country would be under martial law. The military would run things. Anyone who challenged that would be killed, without trial or question. After that year, all States would be granted their independence, the Government would be abolished, and if the States wished it, there would be a new Constitutional Convention to consider the idea of a new Constitution that would be MUCH weaker than the one we currently have, in order to guarrantee the Rights of the States.

[Saddam Hussein]

Please just ignore him.  He's not even trying at this point.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Please just ignore him.  He's not even trying at this point.

Sounds like someone needs a nap, and maybe a blanket too.

[Saddam Hussein]

oy vey

[beardo]

Don't forget to tuck him in.

[juner]

Even if I had said that, which I didn't, perhaps it should be. The fact is, this country long ago betrayed the nature upon which it was founded. The only thing left for it to do is to hurry the hell up and blow itself to smithereens, so the rest of us, who know what we're about, can rebuild it the way it was meant to be. The libtards have destroyed the place. I just wish they would get on with eliminating themselves so the rest of us don't have to put up with their sorry asses. Of course, if I were made dictator for a a year, I could resolve the problem.

Anyone who was in any gang over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Anyone who crossed the border illegally over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Anyone who committed any offence with a weapon and was over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Any person cought "tagging" a piece of property would be arrested. If the sign was determined to be a gang sign the tagger would be shot.

The police would not issue warning shots. If two people were committing a crime, your warning shot would be the other guy dropping dead next to you. That would be your recommendation to stop what you were doing if you cared to live to be arrested.

For a solid year, the country would be under martial law. The military would run things. Anyone who challenged that would be killed, without trial or question. After that year, all States would be granted their independence, the Government would be abolished, and if the States wished it, there would be a new Constitutional Convention to consider the idea of a new Constitution that would be MUCH weaker than the one we currently have, in order to guarrantee the Rights of the States.

In reality, this doesn't merit a response because it is so absurd. But, I will play along. Yes, the country is not the same as it was when it was founded. Not only is that a great thing, it is what the founders intended. They knew society would change, which is why there are instruments for changing/adding/repealing laws.

Your entire societal diatribe is exactly what we have come to expect from you. It is literally nothing new. You want everyone killed for every offense. The states aren't free to do what they want, sorry. That is never going to be the case. I am sure you can find a super oppressive regime in a lot of parts of the world, feel free to go live our your authoritarian wet dream there.

The country is becoming more socially progressive, and it is not turning back. Those of you yearning for the good ol' days are going to to be disappointed day after day. Your kind has literally been around for every major social change. Women's suffrage, civil rights movement, gay marriage, etc. It isn't new or interesting, but good luck playing out that fantasy in your head.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.

Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.

[beardo]

>gays love people of the same sex because they are perverts.

[Rama Set]

Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.

Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.

Well, if a conservative dies first, which is statistically more likely, then you are back where you started, at best. For the record there is more tolerance for homosexuality globally than anytime in history, so your rally cry is pretty ineffectual.

[Misero]

I believe that it goes against the original wishes of the US to not allow these people to, by law, show that they love each other.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.

Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.

Well, if a conservative dies first, which is statistically more likely, then you are back where you started, at best. For the record there is more tolerance for homosexuality globally than anytime in history, so your rally cry is pretty ineffectual.
[/quote

Tolerance where? In the degraded nations of Western Europe and the United States? Your point being?

[Tau]

Even if I had said that, which I didn't, perhaps it should be. The fact is, this country long ago betrayed the nature upon which it was founded. The only thing left for it to do is to hurry the hell up and blow itself to smithereens, so the rest of us, who know what we're about, can rebuild it the way it was meant to be. The libtards have destroyed the place. I just wish they would get on with eliminating themselves so the rest of us don't have to put up with their sorry asses. Of course, if I were made dictator for a a year, I could resolve the problem.

Anyone who was in any gang over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Anyone who crossed the border illegally over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Anyone who committed any offence with a weapon and was over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.

Any person cought "tagging" a piece of property would be arrested. If the sign was determined to be a gang sign the tagger would be shot.

The police would not issue warning shots. If two people were committing a crime, your warning shot would be the other guy dropping dead next to you. That would be your recommendation to stop what you were doing if you cared to live to be arrested.

For a solid year, the country would be under martial law. The military would run things. Anyone who challenged that would be killed, without trial or question. After that year, all States would be granted their independence, the Government would be abolished, and if the States wished it, there would be a new Constitutional Convention to consider the idea of a new Constitution that would be MUCH weaker than the one we currently have, in order to guarrantee the Rights of the States.

I really love your character troll, but I feel like this is a bit on-the-nose

_________


Tom, Scalia's argument is a huge pile of bullshit unbecoming of a supreme court justice. Your metaphorical 6 year old could see the flaws in his dissent. It reads like an angry noob's first post. If you're going to make an argument against the decision, you can't rely on his dissent.