SCOTUS Rules Same Sex Marriage is legal

[46Tbird]

After taking con law, I really got on board with the idea of scraping the constitution, rewriting, and dumping out the commerce clause (primarily) and figuring out a way to offer protection equally without the targeted fucking that we are constantly experiencing.

To change the existing interpretation, that's exactly what would have to happen. The precedent is now set at the highest level of judicial review and there is no way to interpret it any differently.

[dcs13]

What's interesting is to read how SCOTUS dealt with the defense of marriage act (DOMA- Federal law). They said it was a states right issue to deal with marriage and struck down the federal statute as it related to taxes. Now they have last weeks ruling contridicting themselves...
Here is a story on the 2013 ruling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

An excerpt from the LA Times:
"But be careful: this isn’t an affirmation that same sex marriage should be legal in every state. The Supreme Court could have addressed that issue but it didn’t. What it does say is that the federal government does not have the right to overturn a particular state’s decision when it comes to defining marriage. Expect to see more activities by the individual states on this point – but that’s a good thing. The definition of marriage has always been in the purview of states – this issue excepted – and it can now remain so."

[Baba Ganoush]

^^ I remember reading that.

Even with my limited knowledge of the inner workings of the judicial system, when someone at work told me the SCOTUS made gay marriage legal in all 50 states, I immediately said "What? They can't do that."

This certainly sets a precedent.

[dcs13]

^^

This certainly sets a precedent.

THAT is the real scare here. And Scalia sees it (as many of us with a brain do), and he is not mincing his words.

[dcs13]

This is bullshit. These 2 targeted a Christian business so they could sue when they refused to allow their wedding.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/farm_couple_sued_for_discrimination_say_they_were_set_up_.html

[Denny]

Yep. Fags acting like a bunch of faggots.

[Gasser64]

That... that seems aight. I guess I would want the fag to shoot someone for stealing his stuff.

[Jimbo]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-ruling-reaction-npr-interview-119559.html

I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to subject #SCOTUS justices to periodic judicial retention elections

[AnthonyS]

So while everyone is gleefully putting up rainbow versions of their FB profile pic, the Supreme Court just overstepped their jurisdiction, which is inerpreting and upholding actual law passed by Congress in accordance with the Constitution. They struck down state law that was not in violation of federal law. So while that may not be a problem for you, today, "because love won," it sets the precedent that we are not actually a union of sovereign states.

In this way, the nine justices of the Supreme Court wrote law that the Congress did not pass. You still have no problem with this?

Shhhh... you're going to scare the sheep. You don't want to alarm them. It's okay if most of them die as long as they don't actually see the wolves in their suits.

[phaux]

I don't feel like searching to see if this has been posted, if so, delete it.

[big_tiger]

Spike in divorce rate?

[Gasser64]

Let them all go do Salvia divinorum.

[likeitfast55]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...ew-119559.html

Originally Posted by Ted Cruz View Post
I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to subject #SCOTUS justices to periodic judicial retention elections

Then this amendment should apply to the career politicians in the House and Senate. Elected office was never intended to be a career, because over time they (Senators and Representatives) become property of the deepest pockets.

[Forever_frost]

Except the Senate and House are elected by the people (despite the people never being meant to vote on Senators so that the states themselves had a voice) whereas the SC isn't. They were meant to stay in during a term and be removed when they act contrary to their position. The issue is that some idiot believed they could interpret the constitution instead of just reading it and interpreting the laws against it.

The SC could conceivably rule that they are the only branch of government, uphold it and that'd be the law.

[jdgregory84]

Did you completely miss my first two sentences?

The problem is, there is no federal law about marriage criteria. That means that all state laws concerning marriage were perfectly legal because they were not in contradiction of any federal law.

So while everyone is gleefully putting up rainbow versions of their FB profile pic, the Supreme Court just overstepped their jurisdiction, which is inerpreting and upholding actual law passed by Congress in accordance with the Constitution. They struck down state law that was not in violation of federal law. So while that may not be a problem for you, today, "because love won," it sets the precedent that we are not actually a union of sovereign states.

In this way, the nine justices of the Supreme Court wrote law that the Congress did not pass. You still have no problem with this?

When states use religious beliefs to make a law, it's contradictory to federal law.