Let The Meltage Begin!

[Diego in Seattle]

SCOTUS affirms homosexual right to marry.

Suck it, thumpers & conservatards!

[Wolfman]

The USA is no longer a representative republic. And if you think this ends "things", you could not be more wrong.

[Diego in Seattle]

The USA is no longer a representative republic. And if you think this ends "things", you could not be more wrong.

It ends the matter of the legality of SSM. Any government agency or government politician who tries to block SSM marriage would be violating the law.

[BSmack]

The USA is no longer a representative republic. And if you think this ends "things", you could not be more wrong.

Every year we lose more reactionaries to the sweet embrace of death. Go to the light bud. Or the Bud Lite if you're War Wagon.

[poptart]

the law

lol

What law?

Law is dead.

You saw the "Supreme" Court pull magic words out of thin air and impose them on the people yesterday, right?

Were you smart enough to see that?


Celebrate your fruity day now, but wait until "the law" -- pulled out of thin air, gets turned right back on you.
Because oh, it will.
It surely will.


Anarchy has been created.

People are reaping what they've sewn.
Pleasant days are not ahead.

[Diego in Seattle]

Celebrate your fruity day now, but wait until "the law" -- pulled out of thin air, gets turned right back on you.
Because oh, it will.
It surely will.

I'll take that as coming from your "inside sources."

[smackaholic]

No meltage here.

My opinion on the whole topic is that government should not favor any group, in any way.

Is it right that fudgepackers should be discriminated against by the IRS?

No, it is not.

Just as it is not right that someone get a tax break because they choose to marry anyone.

So, when do polygamists get their day in court? If the state can not limit marriage between two people based on plumbing, how can it limit it to two people? And once this door is open....shit is gonna get sideways.

There is one way to make all this shit work fairly. Government needs to stop treating people differently, particularly when it comes to tax code. You make X, your tax is a percentage of X. Who/what you are married to should be irrelevant. How much you pay in mortgage interest, how many solar panels you own, what fukking car you drive, should be irrelevant as well.

We will not have equal protection under the law until that protection extends to the wallet.

[Diego in Seattle]

States never did have a right to deny rights & privileges w/o a compelling reason, 88.

'holic;
Agree with most of what your wrote. If having a child is a choice, why are those choices rewarded with a tax break?

[Mikey]

I actually agree with the two states - Alabama and WVa (I think?) who have said that Government should stop issuing marriage licenses to ANYBODY.

The states should not be in the marriage business. Make the legal union of two people the responsibility of the states, and don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc. (I would allow discrimination based on age and species, though).

If they want to get married they can do it in the church of their choice, which can define marriage any way they want.

[poptart]

States

We learned yesterday that states does not mean states, so now where are we?

[smackaholic]

good point pops.

Yesterday we learned that the SCOTUS can basically do what ever the fukk it wants to do. words are open to interpretation and seeing as laws are made of words, the court is able say a law means whatever the fukk it says it means.

The Constitution is now officially dead which is not surprising as it has been ignored for better than a century now.

[atmdad]

I'm going to celebrate with some cake...

[Mikey]

States

We learned yesterday that states does not mean states, so now where are we?

[Mikey]

words are open to interpretation and seeing as laws are made of words, the court is able to a law means whatever the fukk it says it means.

Glad so see you remembered your Civics class.

Because "interpretation" is exactly what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

[Moving Sale]

States

We learned yesterday that states does not mean states, so now where are we?

That happened in 1942 not yesterday you stupid fuck and it has been done many time by Scalia himself.

[Moving Sale]

We have new royalty, people. Bow down.

Sin,
1942

[smackaholic]

words are open to interpretation and seeing as laws are made of words, the court is able to a law means whatever the fukk it says it means.

Glad so see you remembered your Civics class.

Because "interpretation" is exactly what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

There are cases where a judge has to interpret a complex issue. This is not one of those cases. This is a case where simple 3rd grade understanding of the English language will do. He very well could have said,"congress, re-write and pass this. He didn't because he simply does not want this law to die and he knows that the current congress would not pass a re-write. In doing this, he is saying that interpreting memans whatever the fukk he wants it to mean. In other words, the SCOTUS can just do whatever the fukk it wants. And if the dems get another term and can flip the court in the lib direction, it is game fukking over.

[Truman]

"Do not look to the Court to limit Big Government.

They ARE Big Government."

- M. Levin

[R-Jack]

I think you guys are looking at it the wrong way.

Gay marriage paves the way for gay divorce. You all know that "Gay Divorce Court" could end up being the most entertaining thing in the history of television.

Let it go. You guys are gay honeymoon levels of butt-hurt over it.

[smackaholic]

Gay divorce court would be outstanding. Fukk, it might even be PPV material!

[Go Coogs']

I think you guys are looking at it the wrong way.

Gay marriage paves the way for gay divorce. You all know that "Gay Divorce Court" could end up being the most entertaining thing in the history of television.

Let it go. You guys are gay honeymoon levels of butt-hurt over it.

Good point. The divorce rate is around or less than 50% right now, so it'll be interesting to see after some data collected over the years if gays divorce rates will be higher or lower. My niece is a lesbian and I've never seen more drama between her and her lesbian circle of friends and girlfriends than I would if I watched 30 straight days of Young and the Restless.

I can almost guarantee you the divorce rate for lesbians is going to be north of 70% ten years from now.

[BSmack]

There are cases where a judge has to interpret a complex issue. This is not one of those cases. This is a case where simple 3rd grade understanding of the English language will do. He very well could have said,"congress, re-write and pass this. He didn't because he simply does not want this law to die and he knows that the current congress would not pass a re-write. In doing this, he is saying that interpreting memans whatever the fukk he wants it to mean. In other words, the SCOTUS can just do whatever the fukk it wants. And if the dems get another term and can flip the court in the lib direction, it is game fukking over.

Only an overly pedantic twat would come to that conclusion. The intent of the law is obvious.

[atmdad]

You guys are gay honeymoon levels of butt-hurt over it.

A+ Jack, outstanding allegory.

[mvscal]

Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Article and section of the Constitution granting SCOTUS this power is?

Thanks.

[Moving Sale]

3-2

[mvscal]

Nope. Try again.

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”

--Thomas Jefferson

[smackaholic]

There are cases where a judge has to interpret a complex issue. This is not one of those cases. This is a case where simple 3rd grade understanding of the English language will do. He very well could have said,"congress, re-write and pass this. He didn't because he simply does not want this law to die and he knows that the current congress would not pass a re-write. In doing this, he is saying that interpreting memans whatever the fukk he wants it to mean. In other words, the SCOTUS can just do whatever the fukk it wants. And if the dems get another term and can flip the court in the lib direction, it is game fukking over.

Only an overly pedantic twat would come to that conclusion. The intent of the law is obvious.

Then they should have said so in plain English.

Words have meanings. When we give anyone in government the power to say "well, what they really meant was..." we no longer have the rule of law. Whoever is in charge at that moment can do pretty much whatever the fukk they please.

[BSmack]

Words have meanings. When we give anyone in government the power to say "well, what they really meant was..." we no longer have the rule of law. Whoever is in charge at that moment can do pretty much whatever the fukk they please.

There were other words in the ACA that clearly showed the intent was to offer subsidies to all.

[Moving Sale]

Nope. Try again.

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”

--Thomas Jefferson

That's not a quote from the USC. Nice try though.

[Mikey]

Nope. Try again.

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”

--Thomas Jefferson

An arrogant slave-holding chickenshit who advocated violent revolution but ran away when any actual danger approached.

Definitely the most overrated of any of the "Founding Fathers." You really want to go with TJ?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You really want to go with TJ?

Hell yeah.

[Moving Sale]

You really want to go with TJ?

Hell yeah.

^^absolutely the worst poster every. Please graduate from 3rd grade before you post again pedo.

[mvscal]

Nope. Try again.

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”

--Thomas Jefferson

That's not a quote from the USC. Nice try though.

No. It was a simple statement of fact.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

^^absolutely the worst poster every.

Are you even capable of tying your own shoes?

[Jay in Phoenix]

^^absolutely the worst poster every.

Are you even capable of tying your own shoes?

Well sure he can, his hands are only an inch or two away from his feet.

[atmdad]

^^absolutely the worst poster every.

Are you even capable of tying your own shoes?

Well sure he can, his hands are only an inch or two away from his feet.

Jay I think you might be confusing him with Dinsdale. Have you seen that lanky bastard.

[Moving Sale]

^^absolutely the worst poster every.

Are you even capable of tying your own shoes?

^^case in point. Bland, repetitive, inaccurate and juvenile. About what one would expect from a pedophile.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Yeah, you're melting.

[smackaholic]

Geeebus keeeerist on a popsicle stick, this place has turned into one big IKYABWAIfest.

This terlit needs a theme song. I think this will do....

[Jay in Phoenix]

^^absolutely the worst poster every.

Are you even capable of tying your own shoes?

^^case in point. Bland, repetitive, inaccurate and juvenile. About what one would expect from a pedophile.

Yeah, not unlike white flag, pedophile, fuck sofa, fat fuck, black cock or any other of your standard fill in the blanks you always apply.