Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 26th Jun 2015, 15:24
  #241 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Two's in View Post
As the day to day running of Congress has now become a daily pi$$ing contest between the completely useless, self-serving, mouthpieces; why would we be surprised that SCOTUS is now just an extension of the political parties and fu(* the public?
Too true. Unfortunately.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2015, 16:00
  #242 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Justice John Roberts in his dissent:

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. … But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

Roberts continued, “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.”

“But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.”

“Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2015, 17:05
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 78
Posts: 4,579
Justice John Roberts in his dissent:
...But this Court is not a legislature.
That's not what he said the day before.
barit1 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 03:29
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 617
Though it is a sad day in American judicial history, I suspect that every significant 5-4 decision has been considered similar by the side which did not prevail.
obgraham is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 04:01
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,608
This is the best thing to happen to the Republican party in quite some time. I know many, many conservative gays and lesbians who voted dem on the narrow equal rights platform, holding their noses over other issues. The young conservative voters can now focus on other issues rather than being browbeat over the issue.

My feeling is of ambivalence, no biggie to me if someone wants to get married. My issue is with govt over reach, never believed the govt should be the one saying who can and who can't marry. That said, I think we need to respect the rights of individuals who don't want to officiate a gay wedding.
West Coast is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 04:09
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
My feeling is of ambivalence, no biggie to me if someone wants to get married. My issue is with govt over reach, never believed the govt should be the one saying who can and who can't marry. That said, I think we need to respect the rights of individuals who don't want to officiate a gay wedding.
I've always had the opinion that if we want to go past the interpretation of traditional marrige, then the state should have the decency to change and call it something else.

Then what ever institution is doing the "joining", can call it what they like. Like all things emotive there are a lot of partys passionate about the issue for whatever reasons.
rh200 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 05:46
  #247 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,594
Just for the record, it's the least activist Supreme Court for almost a 100 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/su...anted=all&_r=0
ORAC is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 06:58
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 244
Can the 13 states that don't recognise gay marriage do something about this since the Supreme Court is not the government?
dat581 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 07:04
  #249 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,594
since the Supreme Court is not the government
It is. The government consists of 3 parts, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary; just as the President represents the pinnacle of the first and Congress the second, the Supreme Court represents the third.

In some respects it is the strongest as the first two can state what the law should be be, but the Court decides what the law actually is, and there can be no appeal.
ORAC is online now  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 08:41
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 244
That sounds like unelected judges have the power to decide the law without the people's consent.
dat581 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 10:57
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland
Posts: 166
Great day for equality in the United States. Now for Australia to play catch up.
Wonderworld is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 11:15
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 244
You mean forcing what you want on the US without democratic consent.
dat581 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 12:03
  #253 (permalink)  
410
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Great day for equality in the United States. Now for Australia to play catch up.
Are you just as enthusiastic about Australia following America's lead when it's sending troops to Iraq or Afghanistan because American has?
410 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 12:35
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Take a civics class, dat581. You have a poor grasp of how the different branches of government work.
One Outsider is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 14:15
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 244
How many Americans got a vote in an issue that most have strong feelings about? 9 out of over three hundred million. I don't need a civics lesson to tell me that the Supreme Court is acting like a dictator.
dat581 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 14:45
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
I was a bit hasty when I said 'poor grasp'. I should have said clueless.
One Outsider is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 15:15
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 42
Posts: 244
No mirrors at your place? Yes I know how your Supreme Court works and how it just like some Australian courts think they make the law instead of the elected government. Just like Australia the court system does not act within community expectations or on the communities best interest.
dat581 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 16:56
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,917
dat581
Can the states that don't recognise gay marriage do something about this since the Supreme Court is not the government?
The Supreme Court is a branch of the US Government - although the point you are making is very clear.
The short answer to your question is No.

That sounds like unelected judges have the power to decide the law without the people's consent.
That is strikingly similar to what the Chief Justice of the United States said in his dissenting opinion, which can be summed up as: Just who do we think we are? (His words.)

FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with Chief Justice Roberts' conclusion and his reasons for that conclusion.
Some extracts from his oustandingly impressive opinion
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens - through the democratic process - to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.
As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia …… Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law.
Courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation. The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.”
Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.
Understand well what this dissent is about:
It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.
It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
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.
Just in case anyone thinks (wholly wrongly) that I am being critical of America, I would find it impossible to argue that no British Judge has ever been influenced by his/her personal views.

However, I do think it extraordinary (for the reasons so eloquently explained by Chief Justice Roberts) that such an important social policy issue has been decided by unaccountable and unelected judges (and, even then, by the slimmest majority of 5/4) rather than by the people acting through their democratically elected representatives.

I say 'extraordinary' as a courtesy because I'm not an American.
If I was, I'd use far stronger terms.

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jun 2015 at 17:28.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 17:18
  #259 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
Very worrisome words and if Hillary or any other Democrat is elected to the White House and has the chance to appoint one or two more progressive, liberal justices, what has just happened will be repeated many times in the near future.

Next challenge, if MSNBC is to be believed, will be forcing religions that are against the gay lifestyle to allow gay weddings in churches that disagree morally on religious grounds with the gay lifestyle.

A one commentator stated, ‘It would be just like not allowing blacks or women from joining and attending any given church.’

So much for the Separation of Church and State I fear.



Just in case anyone thinks (wholly wrongly) that I am being critical of America, I am not. I would find it impossible to argue that no British Judge has ever been influenced by his/personal views.
Not in the slightest FL.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2015, 22:51
  #260 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
This is going to be interesting, quite a few states are saying they don't care what the Supreme Court says, they will still ban gay marriages.

So I wonder if President Obama is going to send 101st Airborne into the South again like Eisenhower did in 1957?
con-pilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.