T1B

88 wrote:We are supposed to have three separate but co-equal branches of government. The Executive and legislative branches are supposed to be political animals. The agenda crowd is supposed to be able to lobby the shit out of both to attempt to get them to do as they wish. But the Court, on the other hand, is not supposed to be political.

Wrong. The court is a political body that has built in controls designed to lessen the influence of lobbies and individuals, not completely negate them.

88 wrote:The words set forth in the Constitution do not change, unless there is an Amendment. The meaning of the words shouldn't change either.

Then this should be simple. If the meaning of words shouldn't change and should be interpreted uniformly by all over time, all SCOTUS decisions should be 9-0. I mean, they're all reading and hearing the same words. What's the problem?

Unless ~gasp~ the SCOTUS has never truly been neutral, but has always been made up of human beings who bring their own sets of biases and principles to the bench. But I'm sure that can't be the case. This is only a recent phenomenon, right?

It's funny that a Justice is considered an activist only if his/her opinions differ from whoever is doin' the considerin'. If a Justice's interpretation and opinion on a case agree with yours (regardless of the issue or which side you're on), the Justice is doing his/her job of upholding the intent of the Constitution. If you disagree with the Justice, then he/she is an evil activist.

The idea that one should wait to bring a particular suit until the political makeup of the Supreme Court is sufficiently swayed in favor of one position or another destroys the very idea of the Court. It is supposed to be a neutral body that refuses to delve into political questions.

Then it is supposed to be something it can probably never become.

What bugs the shit out of me is that groups with an agenda are willing to pervert the system to press their agenda forward. That sucks. And it sucks both ways. The pro-life anti-abortion crowd, the gun owner crowd etc. are just as bad as the gays and the anti-USA crowd.

It may suck, but it will never change. Also, I'm not sure if that's truly the issue here (though it may be). Since the suit alleges that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution, is this a case where the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction rather than serving in its usual role as an appellate court? If it's an original jurisdiction case, I would be inclined to agree that the reluctance on the part of the pro-gays to back the plaintiffs is due to concern over the Court's composition. If it's acting as an appellate court, the reluctance may be due to there not being anything done by lower courts that would get anyone optimistic about an overruling. Or, it could be that the ACLU and their ilk are actually doing something right by letting what appears to be a natural course of action to occur and slowly letting the states decide on their own rather than ramrodding a possibly premature measure down the throats of Americans at the Federal level and potentially risking future gains based on the language of the majority opinion if they lose the case.

mvscal wrote:Their job isn't to divine the intent of Constitution.

OK, a semantic lapse on my part. But even if their job is to interpret the meaning of words in the Constitution as written with no regard given to intent, there should be far more unanimous decisions and far fewer 5-4 and 6-3 decisions than there historically have been.

Smackie Chan wrote:...it could be that the ACLU and their ilk are actually doing something right by letting what appears to be a natural course of action to occur and slowly letting the states decide on their own rather than ramrodding a possibly premature measure down the throats of Americans at the Federal level and potentially risking future gains based on the language of the majority opinion if they lose the case.

In that one, extremely long sentence, you just said a mouthful.

Meanwhile, Jsc's deathbed can't wait until all the states ratify gay marriage and would like the process speeded up. He hasn't got until 2050 you know.

War Wagon wrote:Jsc's deathbed can't wait until all the states ratify gay marriage and would like the process speeded up. He hasn't got until 2050 you know.

Hell, 2010 may be a longshot.

Jsc810 wrote:

Once I recover, I'll be fine, which will be more than many of you can say. That's right, I'm healthier than many of you, even though I've had 8 surgeries.

Are you still in the hospital, and if so, in Baton Rouge or NOLA? I'm in the latter, and if you're here and I liked you more I might consider visiting you. Granted, it wouldn't likely get past the considering stage, and doesn't even get to that point as it is, but I just thought you'd appreciate that I mention it.

I don't see the SC taking a marriage case anyway. Marriage is a state issue.

How many of you heard the preacher or judge say "by the power vested in me by the ______________ (Insert denomination) Church and the State of ___________ (Insert State), I now pronounce you Man and Wife.

I doubt anyone heard someone say by the power vested in my by the Constitution of the United States...

Jsc810 wrote: Once I recover, I'll be fine, which will be more than many of you can say. That's right, I'm healthier than many of you, even though I've had 8 surgeries.

Oops, sorry.... there is no recovery from this:

[/quote]

Left Seater wrote:I don't see the SC taking a marriage case anyway. Marriage is a state issue.

So is abortion.

Left Seater wrote:I don't see the SC taking a marriage case anyway. Marriage is a state issue.

How many of you heard the preacher or judge say "by the power vested in me by the ______________ (Insert denomination) Church and the State of ___________ (Insert State), I now pronounce you Man and Wife.

I doubt anyone heard someone say by the power vested in my by the Constitution of the United States...

Not when it comes to rights & privileges (especially those provided by the feds). That's a 14th amendment issue.

88 wrote:Most of the current Court's decisions have been 9-0.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... ack6-9.pdf (see page 4)

Actually, most of the current Court's decisions have not been 9-0. They've been something other than unanimous 61% of the time, although there have been more 9-0 scores than any other, so I see what you're trying to say. So the fact remains that more often than not there is disagreement among the Justices in the interpretation of words and the subsequent opinions resulting from these differences in interpretation. Do you believe that these differences are solely based on politics, or that there is honest, impartial, and apolitical interpretational disagreements?

BSmack wrote:Wrong. The court is a political body that has built in controls designed to lessen the influence of lobbies and individuals, not completely negate them.

Why do liberal adults say dumb shit that only those under 9 yrs old would nod their head up and down to?

The court is a court, you ASS!


There is not much to "interpret" as far as the Constitution goes.

It's not written in a foreign language.

It's pretty straightforward.

Where some "interpretation" might rightfully come into play is in understanding and dealing with the facts of the situation or incident which has come before the court.

THOSE things might be subject to different interpretations.

But the words of the Constitution needing to be interpreted??

Not hardly.

Diogenes wrote:

Left Seater wrote:I don't see the SC taking a marriage case anyway. Marriage is a state issue.

So is abortion.

So is probably 90% of what the feds do these days.

Wouldn't it be nice to see every single fukking thing done on the fed level be reviewed by a SC which actually followed it's oath properly.

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:We are supposed to have three separate but co-equal branches of government. The Executive and legislative branches are supposed to be political animals. The agenda crowd is supposed to be able to lobby the shit out of both to attempt to get them to do as they wish. But the Court, on the other hand, is not supposed to be political.

Wrong. The court is a political body that has built in controls designed to lessen the influence of lobbies and individuals, not completely negate them.

He said should, not is. It wasn't seen as necessary at the time to force jurists to honor the law. When our Constitution was written, the Founders actually had an understanding of what honor and duty are.

What the political hacks on the left never seem to realize is, what goes around comes around. Eventually. It was an activist 19th century decision to subjugate the LDS by outlawing the practice of polygamy that formed the Constitutional basis for the current war against religion in public life. By the same token, a future activist Court with a different political outlook could, instead of opining penumbras of emanations to justify abortion on demand, conflate the DOI as a legal document of our founding and 'discover' a 'right to life'.

Insuring that people of the proper judicial temperament are deciding the law protects you as well. From the consequences of your own actions.

smackie wrote:Wouldn't it be nice to see every single fukking thing done on the fed level be reviewed by a SC which actually followed it's oath properly.

You!!! Of all people!!

Have at 'im, PSU.

Whoops.

There's just something in my fukking brain that makes me jam an apostrophe into a possessive noun on instinct.

Atleast I've gotten over the bad habit of defending it as proper grammar.

There's ^^^^^ another one. I keep trying to make at least into a single word.

Looks like I'm officially done from PSU's little tourney. I was gonna play slimebag lawyer and argue my way out of the "loose" violation. No need to bother now though. '

Thanks, ya fukking tattle tail.

If it hadn't been you, and if it hadn't been that exact same fuck up again, I wouldn't have found it so funny.

With your history, and with Dave instituting his new contest only yesterday, the timing of your perfect fuck up just killed me. It was so Kramer.

^^^^^^^^^^

Nice bunch obsessing over something only a bunch of faggots care about.

Derron wrote:^^^^^^^^^^

Nice bunch obsessing over something only a bunch of faggots care about.

Are you new here or something?

Diogenes wrote:

Derron wrote:^^^^^^^^^^

Nice bunch obsessing over something only a bunch of faggots care about.

Are you new here or something?

Spelling and sentence structure smack and now this bunch of bleeding pussies rants on and on about faggotry and the legal implications thereof.

Just observing and sayin....got anything else in their lives ?

Fuckin pathetic..

Queers suck cock and fuck each other in the ass..dykes eat pussy..been that way for thousands of years..will be for another thousand....Go try and put together some work / income for the next month...errrr the next week, every day and see if you give a fuck about the fags and dykes..

Derron wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Derron wrote:^^^^^^^^^^

Nice bunch obsessing over something only a bunch of faggots care about.

Are you new here or something?

Spelling and sentence structure smack and now this bunch of bleeding pussies rants on and on about faggotry and the legal implications thereof.

First of all ( apparently went over your head) fuckers in this place are constantly obsessing about retarded shit like spelling and grammar. especially the ones with nothing worthwhile to say. And this had nothing to do with "faggotry and the legal implications thereof", it is about the nature of our legal system in general, particularly the attempts by certain groups to politicize it. The particulars of Prop 8 and the cynical attempts to circumvent the Constitution and will of the electorate are just an example.

Diogenes wrote:
First of all ( apparently went over your head) fuckers in this place are constantly obsessing about retarded shit like spelling and grammar. especially the ones with nothing worthwhile to say. And this had nothing to do with "faggotry and the legal implications thereof", it is about the nature of our legal system in general, particularly the attempts by certain groups to politicize it. The particulars of Prop 8 and the cynical attempts to circumvent the Constitution and will of the electorate are just an example.

And this is just confined to faggotry?

Another assumption I will throw out here is that besides faggotry, there are a thousand other things political in nature that our fucked up and corrupt system, allows both parties to make a mockery of what the average citizen thinks, cares or does , save writing a tax check.

So the assumption that a bunch of blow hard message board posters can do anything, or affect change at any level is preposterous.My opinion and take will have no meaning here, since even my state legislators cannot reply to civil e mails I send them, and they are higher up the politico food chain, but tards no the less, and if you have a take here, the object of this board is to insult the others opinion anyway. All the hand wringing, teeth gnashing, name calling really shows these clowns have nothing else to do.

Carry on.