U.S. Supreme Court legalizes nationwide gay marriage

Moss · 06-26-2015, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Like I said, I don't really think it's a valid complaint and most people who are using it are hiding behind those arguments so as not to oust themselves as bigots.

Great point. And don't underestimate the power of Sour Grapes in the people that are complaining. This was not judicial overreach. Maybe a judicial reach around however.

Chula Vista · 06-26-2015, 02:50 PM

Supreme Court + US Constitution > State's Rights.

Hey, homophobic states: go cry in the corner and STFU.

Gonna be fun watching all of the prez candidates juggling this one during the debates, etc.

Moss · 06-26-2015, 03:07 PM

I like how people are complaining about "9 non-elected judges" making decisions, as if they just show up and don't have to go through a vetting process.

The Batlord · 06-26-2015, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I addressed the state's rights issue in my post, but as far as the unelected judges part goes...there were actually 9 unelected judges that voted on the issue since the public doesn't elect them to office. Choosing justices is done on the part of the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch.

But once they're appointed, they serve for life, so once they're in they are technically unaccountable. In practice though, they generally do align themselves with public sentiment, since going off the reservation would likely result in Congress passing laws to undermine their decision, thereby weakening the Court's mandate.

Quote:

Like I said, I don't really think it's a valid complaint and most people who are using it are hiding behind those arguments so as not to oust themselves as bigots.

Most people who do argue against things like Roe v. Wade are indeed bigots, but that's still an ad hominem that doesn't address the basic principle of their argument. IMO the Court has indeed overstepped its mandate at times, but I'm not really concerned with some Supreme Court takeover of the government, so I generally don't have a problem with court activism, since it's resulted in changes that really were/are necessary that Congress and the President are often too gutless to address themselves.

Burning Down · 06-26-2015, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Supreme Court + US Constitution > State's Rights.

Hey, homophobic states: go cry in the corner and STFU.

Gonna be fun watching all of the prez candidates juggling this one during the debates, etc.

Actually I think it's more fun to watch Fox News lose their shit over this.

Chula Vista · 06-26-2015, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

Actually I think it's more fun to watch Fox News lose their shit over this.

My doctor has disabled Fox News from my cable because of blood pressure concerns. I did make a decent plea for Megyn Kelly though.

**Frownland** · 06-26-2015, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Most people who do argue against things like Roe v. Wade are indeed bigots, but that's still an ad hominem that doesn't address the basic principle of their argument.

If I shut down their arguments before supposing that the reason they believe in those arguments is because they're bigots, then it's not ad hominem.

The Batlord · 06-26-2015, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

If I shut down their arguments before supposing that the reason they believe in those arguments is because they're bigots, then it's not ad hominem.

Where did you shut down their arguments? If it was in another post then I missed it.

**Exo** · 06-26-2015, 03:58 PM

It may be entertaining to some, but I'm really glad I don't have TV so I don't have to watch the morons on Fox bashing this decision. I can just sit back, relax, and enjoy the equality.

**Frownland** · 06-26-2015, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Where did you shut down their arguments? If it was in another post then I missed it.

State's rights rebuttal:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I don't think that's really a valid complaint tbh. A lot of people are harboring on state's rights, but if the SCOTUS comes in and says that what a state or states is/are doing is unconstitutional, then they're well within their boundaries since that's one of the main purposes of the court.

Unelected judges rebuttal:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I addressed the state's rights issue in my post, but as far as the unelected judges part goes...there were actually 9 unelected judges that voted on the issue since the public doesn't elect them to office. Choosing justices is done on the part of the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch.

Like I said, I don't really think it's a valid complaint and most people who are using it are hiding behind those arguments so as not to oust themselves as bigots.

06-26-2015, 02:50 PM	#52 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	Supreme Court + US Constitution > State's Rights. Hey, homophobic states: go cry in the corner and STFU. Gonna be fun watching all of the prez candidates juggling this one during the debates, etc. __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

06-26-2015, 03:58 PM	#59 (permalink)
Exo All day jazz and biscuits Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 7,354	It may be entertaining to some, but I'm really glad I don't have TV so I don't have to watch the morons on Fox bashing this decision. I can just sit back, relax, and enjoy the equality. __________________ LastFM SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-26-2015, 03:07 PM	#53 (permalink)
Moss Scuttle Buttin' Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boulder Colorado Posts: 972	I like how people are complaining about "9 non-elected judges" making decisions, as if they just show up and don't have to go through a vetting process.