|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-26-2015, 05:07 PM | #61 (permalink) | |
Zum Henker Defätist!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,199
|
But that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the Court is stretching their interpretation of Constitutional law to an extent that they're in effect rewriting it.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
06-26-2015, 05:17 PM | #62 (permalink) | ||
SOPHIE FOREVER
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. |
||
06-26-2015, 06:41 PM | #63 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 242
|
It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's job is to decide if a law does or does not violate the rights of the citizens. In this case, they have decided that it does. I for one am incredibly happy.
__________________
Every being is intelligent. But if you measure a fish's intelligence on it's ability to climb a tree, it will live forever thinking it's stupid. |
06-26-2015, 07:34 PM | #66 (permalink) | ||||
Zum Henker Defätist!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,199
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm also not talking about this ruling. As far as I'm concerned, gay marriage does fall under the Constitution. At the same time, I didn't even know this was a case until today, so I have no idea who the parties involved in the case are, what the case was about, or how the Court interpreted the Constitution to decide their ruling. For all I know, this could in fact be bad law, not because the Constitution shouldn't protect gay marriage, but simply because the specifics of the case might not have justified the Court's application of the law in this specific case. I simply have no idea, since, again, I have no idea what the case was. I was using Brown v. Board of Education as my example (improperly I must admit, as I should have been referring to Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States), because the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution to rule that businesses discriminating based on race was unconstitutional. The clause reads that "The Congress shall have power...": Quote:
My point is that it's a big stretch to say that the Commerce Clause should extend to that. And if the Court can interpret the Constitution to say pretty much anything it wants to, then the Constitution's authority has been functionally superseded by the Supreme Court. Again, I'm not worried about the Court staging a quiet coup to seize control of the government, since they generally are pretty conservative about wielding their authority, but every time the law of the land becomes watered down whenever it suits the Court's moral prerogative, then the law of unintended consequences threatens to undermine the greater good of the country later on in unforeseen ways.
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
06-26-2015, 11:07 PM | #67 (permalink) |
.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: .
Posts: 7,201
|
Just as I thought it was time to update this one they did.
A 30-Second Guide to How the Gay Marriage Ruling Affects You | Cracked.com
__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout. |
06-27-2015, 01:40 AM | #69 (permalink) | |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
|
Quote:
USA USA USA |
|
|