Gay Marriage and 2A....

[cclaxton]

1) The FFs knew this and we all know that humans are imperfect, which is why they wrote a document restraining power, but that's not happening. This is an overreach by the very fact that the federal gov't/SCOTUS should not be deciding for all 50 states without going through the process.

2) Of course the lens is political. These judges are appointed by one party or the other. How can they not be politically motivated? It's why we say X supreme tends to be more liberal/conservative. The word tends is not an indictment of my point. There is horse trading in every branch of gov't.

3) I don't see them protecting our rights when they violate the method in which these rights are changed. The reason why we write laws is so we don't have to guess an intention. If you're a lawyer/legislator/congressman and cannot write a law clearly enough, then it should be sent back to the legislature and be fixed.

4) That's Machiavellian and the reason why people left Europe to come to this country. I find this sentence most disturbing as I don't see you as someone (from what I can tell on the internet) who really lives their life this way.

1) Well, the FF wrote a document establishing and restraining powers. Later they wrote the BOR which establishes individual and states rights, and yes, restrains the gov't. But let's not forget the Constitution itself establishes that power is derived from THE PEOPLE, and that power gives comprehensive authority to the government. The whole point of the BOR was to act to prohibit the gov't from subjugating its citizens as the British had done. It is both.
2) The SCOTUS serves without term limits for the very purpose of allowing them to make decisions that are not subject to political pressure. Of course we know that there is *some* political dimension, but the whole point is so that these judges can look at the LAW and review LAWS and controversies that are politically charged. When these judges are reviewing these cases for the most part they are thinking about the effect of the LAWS on individuals, states, congress and corporations. I do believe they are more willing to make decisions contrary to the current conservative or liberal platforms. You can see this in a number of key decisions by Roberts, Kennedy, and others. Of course there are some partisans on the court, but because of their extreme positions they rarely have any role in crafting the decision.
3) The method doesn't matter if the results are having the proper effect on our laws, our liberties and our rights. The truth is that gov't doesn't work half the time due to partisan gridlock and dysfunctional political parties. At least with THE LAWS we have a group of justices that are working to do the right thing for Americans. Would any of us care whether Heller was upheld by the 14th or the 2nd?...I don't. What matters is now people in San Francisco can arm themselves in their own homes. THAT matters.
4) There is nothing manipulative about it. There is always more than one way to get something done. The same is true for Congress and the Executive branches. The vetting process to become a Supreme Court Justice sets a very high bar. Plus, there are nine of them. This prevents the court from becoming stacked with totalitarians or anarchists.

I have to sign-off...heading to a match tomorrow morning and then girlfriends tomorrow night, then a Classifier on Saturday. I would rather be shooting than debating anyhow.

Have a good weekend.
Cody

[45dotACP]

Montana Trio Applying for Marriage License

Two wives? Hell if I wanted to disappoint two people at once I'd have dinner with my parents...

[breakingtime91]

Montana Trio Applying for Marriage License

this is more strange to me then two people of the same sex getting married..

[breakingtime91]

So let's play with your rules. I am in fact against the freedom to rape and murder, and I do not pretend otherwise. I am in favor of rules against murder and rape, both to punish the persons who commit those crimes and to prevent them. I am against those who say are in favor of freedom while in fact denying others their rights.

As for poverty that is a condition, not a behavior.

well done sir. well done. I am also against people who yell "freedom" until it offends their religion or "way of life" and they reserve the right to deny others the thing they hold so dear.

[JAD]

this is more strange to me then two people of the same sex getting married..

That is two people of the same sex getting married. Plus Lucky McSilverado, there.

[JAD]

well done sir. well done. I am also against people who yell "freedom" until it offends their religion or "way of life" and they reserve the right to deny others the thing they hold so dear.

So am I. Nobody here has done that. Some of us have expressed concern (or certainty) that this will (has) lead (led) to an erosion of first amendment protection.

[JTQ]

Montana Trio Applying for Marriage License

Bring it on.

Maybe they're a guy and his two sisters. That'd be great. Let's see how far the left is willing to go with this idea of freedom.

[JTQ]

this is more strange to me then two people of the same sex getting married..

Not to nearly anybody else in the history of the planet. Remember the "millennium" comments from the Justices early in the proceedings. There has been polygamy throughout the history of the world. There has never been gay marriage (I'm not saying there hasn't been homosexuality) before.

[Jeep]

Jeep,
How has the SCOTUS reduced our liberties?...The only areas where I see it has is with Abortion rights...they keep allowing states to shorten the period when abortions are legal. You could argue Texas being able to suppress the Confederate Flag symbol is one...but not a significant one. If the politics change they can allow it. There is NFIB v Sebelius which interpreted the ACA requirements to be a tax, although I don't really see how individual liberty is affected. Kelo v City of New London is perhaps a good example of loss of liberty. It allows gov't to use eminent Domain to take poor peoples property. You then have to go all the way back to 1987 in McClesky v Kemp and that is really a civil rights case in criminal law. I just don't see it.

And, as far as the future...that is sheer speculation. Conservative justices have sided with liberal ones and liberal ones have sided with conservative ones. That is why I say we should not look at the court through a political lens but through a legal one.
Cody

Cody: As for reducing freedom, I would start with Wickard v. Filburn (the case allowing the federal government to regulate a farmer growing corn for home consumption) and similar cases that started in the 1930's and 40's, and go right up to the Obamacare case of two years ago (not this year's decision). Where does the federal government get the right to force people to buy health insurance? The provision that is usually cited, its power to regulate commerce between the states, was only a limited power to decide on actual interstate commerce. And the power to tax (the power cited in the Obamacare case) was a revenue raising power, not a regulatory one.

We are substantially less free than we were a century ago and the Supreme Court's handing of the keys to the kingdom to FDR, and its continuing to do so, are a substantial part of the reason why.

[Jeep]

Actually, in this case, you do not stand for freedom. SCOTUS granted the freedom to marry to gays. You don't agree? Then do not marry a man. That's it, not difficult at all from a lay perspective.

The problem with religion is that you don't stop there. You ask to deny THEM the right to marry because YOU are against it. YOU think it's wrong, but you are not happy until others don't do what you believe. Your definition of freedom is THEM not marrying. Only then YOUR religion freedom is satisfied. Then you are surprised they come after your guns? To me the logic is sublime.

If you really want less rules from the government, spare us your divinely inspired rules. You are against smoke? Don't pick up a cigarette. Against abortions? Don't have one, have a baby. Against guns? Don't buy a gun, cry in fear if a bad guy harms you. This is liberty, not yours. Liberty is defending the right of people to do things we DISAGREE with. Too easy if it only works when you agree with it.

looseduke: With respect, have you actually read what I have been writing? Where have I been arguing for "divinely inspired rules?" I have argued that the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision is intellectually incoherent and a power-grab by the Supreme Court. I also disagree that it is the Supreme Court's place to "grant" anyone freedom. It's job is to interpret the Constitution as written--not as it wants it to be--because the power to amend the Constitution is properly reserved to the states (and hence the people). That isn't a theological argument at all.

I have also argued that the Supreme Court's decision is incorrect because it assumes a definition of marriage that in fact is not its historical definition. Courts aren't supposed to do that--that is what legislatures are for. If Connecticut wants to permit same-sex marriage, it is certainly allowed to do so under the Constitution. And if Texas wants to adhere to the older definition of marriage, it is permitted to do that as well. That's what federalism is all about.

As for abortion, I haven't mentioned it at all. Now, in fact, I agree with the (pro-choice) legal commentator, John Hart Ely, who said at the time that Roe v. Wade "isn't Constitutional law and gives no hint of even trying to be." (Paraphrased but close). I also happen to disagree with it on the merits and would be happy in another thread to debate it with you, and I'll debate it on scientific and philosophical, not religious, grounds.

Finally, on religion. Yes, I'm religious and I will never deny it. However, I haven't been debating on religious grounds here. If you care, again in a new thread, I would be happy to debate whether normative ideas are illegitimate simply because they are religious in nature. The truth is, as JAD points out, everyone agrees that some things have to be against the law. How one decides what those things are is interesting, but I would suggest (though not in this thread--too off topic I think) that being against murder on religious grounds is not functionally different than being against murder on, say, utilitarian, grounds.

As for your definition of "liberty" I think it is closer to a definition of "tolerance" but I don't disagree with that. Indeed, I think that you will see I made a very similar point previously.