Split decision on marriage equality?

[SGOS]

At the very max, it will be a 6-3 decision. But I don't have much faith in Roberts either (despite his surprising ruling on Obamacare). The key lies in Kennedy, who has a good record of favoring equality for gays.

It suddenly strikes me as odd to hear someone contemplate another's "favoring equality for gays."  What strikes me as odd is that the very statement implicitly points out that there are actually some, rather powerful educated others, who for arbitrary reasons, do not favor equality for gays.  Or for that matter, might not favor equality for many other segments of the human population as well.

There are people making decisions in the "Defense of Marriage" (since that's that is what our duplicitous politicians conspired to call a law that actually defends nothing), but is rather simple, straight forward, and discriminatory in its intent and purpose.  For something to be defended, it assumes that that thing must be under attack, which is not what is happening in society today.  No one is proposing to destroy the institution of marriage.

But if our government would have chosen to name the law in such a way as to describe what it really is, it might cause small portions of the population, even among those who are half asleep, to feel a slight twinge of conscience.  Some would be delighted to call it what it is, so they can proudly display their superiority by sticking it to their inferiors, and others, like my foggy brained neighbor would insist that there is no discrimination toward gay people in our society, because in his words (I swear, I'm not making this up), "They pay taxes like everyone else."

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Clarence Thomas is pretty much a Scalia clone.  

PLEEASE don't compare Thomas to Scalia, they are complete opposites in terms of legal personality and follow very distant and distinct legal theories.
Want proof? this is what he said in his separate dissent of Lawrence vs Texas. 2003, the case that struck down all of the countries anti sodomy laws for good.
"I write separately (from the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia) to note that the law before the court today 'is...uncommonly silly'." If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."

What was his reasoning for dissenting in the first place then?

[BarkAtTheMoon]

It suddenly strikes me as odd to hear someone contemplate another's "favoring equality for gays."  What strikes me as odd is that the very statement implicitly points out that there are actually some, rather powerful educated others, who for arbitrary reasons, do not favor equality for gays.  Or for that matter, might not favor equality for many other segments of the human population as well.

I think that's not even in question. There are plenty of people in all branches of government who don't favor equality.

There are people making decisions in the "Defense of Marriage" (since that's that is what our duplicitous politicians conspired to call a law that actually defends nothing), but is rather simple, straight forward, and discriminatory in its intent and purpose.  For something to be defended, it assumes that that thing must be under attack, which is not what is happening in society today.  No one is proposing to destroy the institution of marriage.

This is something the Dems need to stop letting the right wing get away with. It's been a GOP strategy for a long time to label bills and causes in a way that skews the conversation. The Patriot Act, Pro-Life, the Defense of Marrage Act, the Family Research Council, The Path to Prosperity, the list goes on and on. All nice sounding titles that make a dissenter sound like a douchebag, all with little substance and some are downright vile.

My boss at work said something interesting recently regarding how a company or the employees present performance or forecasts in meetings. When they have a good story to tell, they use a lot of data, lot of facts, measurable performance by the numbers. When they don't, they use a lot of fluffy, vague language telling a story and hiding from presenting any hard data or skewing what they have with cherrypicked ranges, other little tricks, or straight up lying. It's a handy way of telling who's completely full of shit and who maybe isn't. A prime example was following the last election watching Romney and Ryan repeatedly dragging their feet on any honest look at the numbers and changing their story every debate, particularly with the budget.

[Wheatthins]

Clarence Thomas is pretty much a Scalia clone.  

PLEEASE don't compare Thomas to Scalia, they are complete opposites in terms of legal personality and follow very distant and distinct legal theories.
Want proof? this is what he said in his separate dissent of Lawrence vs Texas. 2003, the case that struck down all of the countries anti sodomy laws for good.
"I write separately (from the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia) to note that the law before the court today 'is...uncommonly silly'." If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."

What was his reasoning for dissenting in the first place then?

That the government is all powerful and should be able to regulate things as they see fit, even when it comes to  sexual activities.  Which, you know it does and should be able to in many instances.(rape, beastiality, incest, ect)  And that its law makers jobs to change regulations if society thinks they should be or if they are wasteful and pointless, not the courts.  (which they fucking should, thats why we have legislative bodies in the first place)
Where I and most of us here would disagree with him is that often times, when lawmakers drag their fucking feet in changing laws and just doing their jobs, the courts have a fucking duty to step in, smack some bitches around and do something.  Thomas would say the courts shouldn't do that when it's just privacy about sexual habits that we are talking about.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

What was his reasoning for dissenting in the first place then?

That the government is all powerful and should be able to regulate things as they see fit, even when it comes to  sexual activities.  Which, you know it does and should be able to in many instances.(rape, beastiality, incest, ect)  And that its law makers jobs to change regulations if society thinks they should be or if they are wasteful and pointless, not the courts.  (which they fucking should, thats why we have legislative bodies in the first place)
Where I and most of us here would disagree with him is that often times, when lawmakers drag their fucking feet in changing laws and just doing their jobs, the courts have a fucking duty to step in, smack some bitches around and do something.  Thomas would say the courts shouldn't do that when it's just privacy about sexual habits that we are talking about.

 :-k That's interesting. He's basically invalidating half the point of the Supreme Court then. The whole checks & balances thing to the other branches when the other branches do something stupid and pass a law that's unconstitutional and discriminatory makes it their duty to step in and invalidate those laws.

[SGOS]

:-k That's interesting. He's basically invalidating half the point of the Supreme Court then. The whole checks & balances thing to the other branches when the other branches do something stupid and pass a law that's unconstitutional and discriminatory makes it their duty to step in and invalidate those laws.

The Supreme Court appears to be more of an extension of the legislature, rather than an agency of justice acting as a check and balance.  Individuals of the court often seem to be little more than rubber stamps for the party that appoints them.

[Wheatthins]

:-k That's interesting. He's basically invalidating half the point of the Supreme Court then. The whole checks & balances thing to the other branches when the other branches do something stupid and pass a law that's unconstitutional and discriminatory makes it their duty to step in and invalidate those laws.

Its not so much that he thinks the courts should never step up and intervene in things.  He just thinks there it should be a bit more limited in some cases.  And always try to remember, most supreme court cases are decided unanimously or with a large majority. (if Scalia wasn't here you would see alot more unanimous ones too)  Its when you get into legal cases that stretch legal reason or are on the periphery , and even ones that are highly politicized, you get to see the differences between what the justices think.

The Supreme Court appears to be more of an extension of the legislature, rather than an agency of justice acting as a check and balance.  Individuals of the court often seem to be little more than rubber stamps for the party that appoints them.

Please, everyone needs to stop thinking this because its not whats happening in reality.

[SGOS]

The Supreme Court appears to be more of an extension of the legislature, rather than an agency of justice acting as a check and balance.  Individuals of the court often seem to be little more than rubber stamps for the party that appoints them.

Please, everyone needs to stop thinking this because its not whats happening in reality.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Nonsensei]

Please, everyone needs to stop thinking this because its not whats happening in reality.

Actually it is the de facto reality. Since its a presidential appointment, they tend to pick people who align with themselves politically. In essence you get a lifetime appointment for someone who shares your political agenda, which is why successfully appointing one is considered a major accomplishment for an administration.


Its pretty clear when Scalia delivers his scathing dissenting opinion on a given issue that might be vaguely supported legally but is more noticeably stuffed with his thinly veiled personal opinion. These people are human, they have agendas, and they answer to nobody once appointed. Its not hard to believe that, after awhile, the adherence to determining the constitutionality of an issue falls to the wayside in the pursuit of molding public opinion or, at the very least, setting the tone for it.

As evidence I offer up some of the justices reluctance to take this case on with the explanation that it may be "too soon". Its never too soon to determine the constitutionality of an issue. If they were solely focused on that then they wouldn't even have this sort of objection. That they are considering factors other than the constitutionality of the laws before them shows that they are wandering outside the parameters of their jobs and considering things that are not legally relevant.