I already said, twice, that I'm not arguing this decision. If you keep trying to narrow it to only gay marriages, you might as well be talking to yourself because - again - I'm not debating gay marriage. Of course not. But just because it's been done like this for years, it doesn't make it the right way.
A supreme court decision is a decision based on existing law. In this case they used section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to justify the decision. They cannot just willy nilly decide to do shit like have ID chips implanted or government approved caregivers or whatever nonsense you want to dream up. What laws would possibly justify such things?
First, decision is based on INTERPRETATION of existing laws, key difference. This is where the opinion comes in, this is why more than 1 judge is needed. Second, you're forgetting that setting up new, altering or abandoning laws is also under the purview of the CS. So "existing laws" becomes a changing concept. True, they can't just decide to microchip you out of the blue. The way these things work is first a new law is accepted on states level. Then an interested group promotes it and challenges a suitable case in lower court. Eventually the ruling reaches SC that makes nation-wide decision. This is how gay marriage passed (still NOT arguing for or against, just using as an example to illustrate the process). So while you're right that SC can't just decide out of the blue to microchip you, they can uphold and make a nation-wide precedent from a state law to microchip you.
Wife mad the other is playing mind games on her thus nothing ever gets resolved. Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk
This would be interesting actually. Court are overwhelmingly on the side of the woman. Wonder would would happen when there are 2 mommies.... or none.
Are you being willfully ignorant or are you actually that thickheaded? It's really easy to be sick of a topic when it's something that doesn't involve your rights. Gay people are burned alive in some countries. Gay people are bullied and tormented in school and at work. Gay people weren't allowed to get married, up until yesterday. Do you know why Michael Sam had to announce that he was gay? Not for attention, but for the countless gay people who played sports in the closet, out of the fear of being chastised. For the countless gay people who got married to the opposite sex just to appease their parents. As soon as the majority of the people accept that some people are gay, we can then get sick of the topic.
And what part of the constitution would possibly make that lawful? It's pretty clear in this case that the 14th amendment was being violated by states refusing gay marriage.
Don't know which part, hope there are no parts like this. Don't discount the possibility just yet though. First, there were precedents when something unheard of in the past happened and was upheld by SC. Women's right to vote, abortion rights to name a couple. Weren't those upheld based on interpretation of existing laws? I'm not a lawyer and don't have an exhaustive knowledge of the Constitution, but you really don't see a scenario when some creative reading 50 years from now will enable microchipping? For the greater good and public safety, naturally. Second, I keep hearing that Constitution is a living document. From what I understand, the meaning of this is something along the lines of "don't read it verbatim". So maybe you're relying on its strict reading a little too much.
The group in Congress sucks. The "people" elected Obama to 8 years and before that Bush to 8 years. Let's face it. We have not been proving to be good at that voting thing.
It's pretty clear at this point that Scalia would have supported Slavery if the issue came up in front of him "because that's how the Constitution was written."
How am I restructuring my life? John and Harry getting married has absolutely zero effect on my life. That being said if I owned a wedding catering business or some business associated with weddings I would be pissing my pants with the prospect of all the new business this would create especially in a city like Las Vegas. I don't care and if 2 guys want to hold hands or kiss each other in public. There is nothing wrong with that, I don't care when I see a guy and girl locking lips so why should I care if I see 2 guys or 2 girls doing it? Again.... how does this effect my life in anyway? Depends what that decision is, if I can respect it based on the Constitution then yes I would defend the decision even if I felt it was wrong. Perfect example of this; Roe vs Wade. I feel that life begins at conception, I am pro life and I believe it is murder however based on the 14th amendment it isn't. The SC ruled in 1973 that my view is wrong and I can live with that. I don't like it, I think it is wrong but I can see why they ruled the way they did and I'm not going to go on some rampage over it.
Took my daughter to the movies and the tranny at the refreshment counter was funnier than the movie. $20 well spent. Live and let live. Marriage should be allowed for LGBT.
Barry, I wasn't taking about gay marriage specifically. I'm sure this decision doesn't affect you life. But some other decisions might. It seems the cornerstone is in Constitution, and I agree. The problem is that we are taking about interpretation, which is subjective. So if we rely on subjectivity,, on opinion, wouldn't it be better to decide important issue that affect the nation by referendum and not but a panel of judges?
Women got the right to vote via a constitutional amendment, the 19th amendment. That had nothing to do with the supreme court. A constitutional amendment is done by congress and requires a 2/3's vote from the house and senate. roe vs. wade cited the 14th amendment. they can't just make a decision based on "the greater good and public safety". That's nonsense. It has to specifically reference the laws passed by congress. So to summarize, you are concerned that the constitution could change and that the supreme court will rule on a case that upholds the new law. Is that about right?
Yes, my concern is that constitution will change not via a national referendum, but through an interpretation of what's already there.
Do you think that's what happened here? What happened here was the scotus told the states they can't have laws that deprive citizens of life, liberty or property. scary stuff, i know.
