SCOTUS says YES to gay marriage
UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.
Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth
Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.
Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Isn't this the same doofus that supported the idea that corporations are people?
nohero said:
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.
Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
nohero said:
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.
Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
I am not clear on what Scalia's beef is with that sentence. Looks good to me. Can the MOL legal scholars explain?
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Well, they can take comfort in the fact that their attitude will hopefully die in the next generation or so.
Oh wait, that's what I take comfort in. Screw them.
Yes, Screw them... This is a great day!
mrincredible said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:Well, they can take comfort in the fact that their attitude will hopefully die in the next generation or so.
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Oh wait, that's what I take comfort in. Screw them.
A moment of silence please for Fox News. they've had a very bad 24 hours! YAYAYAYAYA!!!
nohero said:
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.
Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
I think I just heard his head explode.
mrincredible said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:Well, they can take comfort in the fact that their attitude will hopefully die in the next generation or so.
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Oh wait, that's what I take comfort in. Screw them.
OK, but don't try marrying them.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Why are they pissed? Let me guess:
1. This is not the America they knew and grew up in. The America where darkies knew their place in the back of the bus and gays were hidden in closets. Now we have all these uppity people demanding rights.
2. Allowing gay marriage has made the institution of marriage worthless, lessening the worth of their own marriages.
3. God disapproves and will punish, like Sodom and Gomorrah.
4. A combination of the above three.
I'm so sick and tired of their whining. If they want to live in the 18th century then so be it, but stop the constant whining and the attempts to impose their beliefs on us.
LL_ said:
A moment of silence please for Fox News. they've had a very bad 24 hours! YAYAYAYAYA!!!
Here's for Fox News:
Plbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb!
Unfortunately they do better when they have stuff to rant about.
What I wonder is how much does this energize the conservative base. Will this be a uniting event for Republicans to rally around, or will it cause a rift between socially liberal / fiscally conservative Republicans and the conservative Christian faction?
shoshannah said:
nohero said:I am not clear on what Saclia's beef is with that sentence. Looks good to me. Can the MOL legal scholars explain?
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.
Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
let's recall that this is the same justice who believes that the state does have an interest in preventing people from engaging in consensual sexual acts in their homes.
shoshannah said:nohero said:I am not clear on what Saclia's beef is with that sentence. Looks good to me. Can the MOL legal scholars explain?
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
No problem. The applicable legal principle involved can be summed up in one sentence: "Fat Tony is p*ssed with the decision."
mrincredible said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:Well, they can take comfort in the fact that their attitude will hopefully die in the next generation or so.
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Oh wait, that's what I take comfort in. Screw them.
!!!!
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Slackers! Who is in a restaurant at 10:30 AM on a work day?
LOST said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:Slackers! Who is in a restaurant at 10:30 AM on a work day?
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Grumpy bigots
nohero said:
shoshannah said:No problem. The applicable legal principle involved can be summed up in one sentence: "Fat Tony is p*ssed with the decision."
nohero said:I am not clear on what Saclia's beef is with that sentence. Looks good to me. Can the MOL legal scholars explain?
Once again, Justice Scalia is not happy.
This is an excerpt from the "SCOTUSblog" website.
Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
Apparently Mr. Justice Scalia believes the Constitution affords rights only to straight white males. And Corporations.
He doesn't matter, his position is impotent, and that's what he's pissed about. He doesn't want to be in the minority.
LOST said:
Formerlyjerseyjack said:Slackers! Who is in a restaurant at 10:30 AM on a work day?
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Have you been to South Jersey? For such a small state, it's another world away from here.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
I am in a restaurant in south Jersey.
The customers are pissed with the decision
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
7 years of Obama and nothin' but s..t from him
I am not sure what the Supreme Court's decision has to do with Obama, but I'm sure theses slackers blame him for everything. They are probably just as pissed that he is spending the morning at Mother Emmanuel Church.
How long has that particular restaurant been there? What was the reaction of patrons when Wilson put a Jew on the Supreme Court, SCOTUS said Black kids should go to the same school as White kids, America elected a Catholic President, or America elected a bi-racial President.
What will be on the menu the day America elects a female President?
LOST said:
I am not sure what the Supreme Court's decision has to do with Obama, but I'm sure theses slackers blame him for everything.
my son had an internship in DC last year. one of his roommates worked the phones for a GOP congressman. he told the rest of the roommates: "This is the easiest job in the world. If somebody calls up to complain about something, I just blame Obama."
Read Scalia's full dissent. Along side the fact that it's incredibly childish and shows that he is completely out of step with the world (He actually wrote, "Go ask the nearest hippie"), he shows an astounding lack of self-awareness - "The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content egotiatic." He writes that a few paragraphs before this:
"Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goth before the fall."
I respect his legal mind, but he's really become a complete douchebag.
It's interesting that the President's speech in the Rose Garden was impromptu, not staged, not written, for those who, seven years ago, said here on MOL that all of his speeches were pre-planned and written. Just a note.
5-4