Marriage Equality Legalization Would Add To Illinois' Economy

[eJohn]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Justice Scalia's blatant activism undoubtedly has the rest of the court considering a bit of humility in their role. It would be sad and ironic, indeed, if Scalia's "originalist" derision of the entire Senate and most of the House resulted in more moderate justices fearing to uphold the constitution.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that either Kagan or Sotomayor are going to back down to Scalia's bigotry....

[nhjeff]

Francisco dAnconia wrote:

<quoted text>
oh no, it was going to be a full blown gay tourist destination...
we were going to be 6 Rainbow Flags!!
it didn't happen..in fact the demand for gay marriages is LOW...
you also argued for days that the gay marriage movement was homegrown in VT until I showed you it wasn't...so your credibility is not 100 %...

The context of that statement was that we lobbied the grassroots and won because our opponents had to be flown in from out-of-state. Their funding came almost entirely from large out-of-state contributors. And my point is that our opponents are unlikely to succeed in building future grass-roots campaigns that outflank us. I stand by that.

[nhjeff]

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't seen any evidence yet that either Kagan or Sotomayor are going to back down to Scalia's bigotry....

He needs only four accomplices. However, I forsee fur flying in SCOTUS.

[eJohn]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
So your interpretation of his statement is more along the lines of "if you don't like our decisions, then stop making us decide these cases in the first place"?

Pretty much. I don't take it at all that he's saying they should leave the laws to the congress and the voters. I'm thinking he was expressing disappointment that such obviously unconstitutional issues keep coming before the courts.

It's only because of lawmakers shirking their duties and pandering to a tiny delusional base of irrational fools that cases like this end up in court to begin with. If lawmakers would quit passing such blatantly unconstitutional laws in order to ensure their re-election by angry a-holes, none of this would be a problem.

But instead, they're just passing anything and everything the panicking hoards are wetting their pants over and then lobbing it to the courts to fix. That sure pisses me off as a citizen, but I'm sure that judges in our court system are pretty sick of it, too.

[WeTheSheeple]

Francisco dAnconia wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love for them to hear what you guys are saying at the court...they would consider it great fiction...

Scalia doesn't believe women or gays or blacks have any constitutional rights at all. He's make that extremely clear in numerous statements.

I can only hope he dies soon so Obama gets to replace him.

[eJohn]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
All the more reason to get Scalia off the court.

I've never wished bad things on anyone, but Scalia's making it harder and harder for me to keep that record....

[snyper]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

BIG news from Justice Kennedy while in Sacramento yesterday.
Read his remarks about 9 unelected justices deciding politically charged issues like gay marriage, healthcare, immigration.
Is this a clue how he's going to rule?
Could DOMA & Prop 8 both be upheld in favor of letting Congress & the states working it out through the democratic process?

Link?

[eJohn]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
He needs only four accomplices. However, I forsee fur flying in SCOTUS.

True, but until he proves me wrong, I still have an inexplicable sense of faith that Roberts will come down on the side of equality in these cases. I have NO idea why I have that feeling about Roberts, but I'm hoping I'm right.

I wish we knew how they voted on taking the cases. THAT would certainly be interesting, wouldn't it?

Needless to say, I'm supremely confident in Scalia, Thomas, or Alito siding against equal treatment under the law. Unless the next Pope happens to authorize them to rule that way.

[snyper]

Xavier Breath wrote:

O'Neill, William F.(1977)[1971]. With Charity Toward None: An Analysis of Ayn Rand's Philosophy. New York: Littlefield, Adams & Company. ISBN 0-8226-0179-6. OCLC 133489.

That woman is evil nuts. A miserable piece of work.

[WeTheSheeple]

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
True, but until he proves me wrong, I still have an inexplicable sense of faith that Roberts will come down on the side of equality in these cases. I have NO idea why I have that feeling about Roberts, but I'm hoping I'm right.
I wish we knew how they voted on taking the cases. THAT would certainly be interesting, wouldn't it?
Needless to say, I'm supremely confident in Scalia, Thomas, or Alito siding against equal treatment under the law. Unless the next Pope happens to authorize them to rule that way.

Correct- knowing which justices voted to accept which cases would tel us a LOT more than what we'll hear in oral arguments.

[Xavier Breath]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
That woman is evil nuts. A miserable piece of work.

Yes indeedy do....

[Francisco dAnconia]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Scalia doesn't believe women or gays or blacks have any constitutional rights at all. He's make that extremely clear in numerous statements.
I can only hope he dies soon so Obama gets to replace him.

Which is how a statement that the constitution should be amended as it is designed to be done and not by 9 UNELECTED people is cast in your world.

Its like how statement that we should cut all foreign aid can be said to be an attack at Israel (not to take a stance or attribute one to you on THAT issue).

I doubt you realize how slanted your side portrays intellectual honesty at this point...

[nhjeff]

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
True, but until he proves me wrong, I still have an inexplicable sense of faith that Roberts will come down on the side of equality in these cases. I have NO idea why I have that feeling about Roberts, but I'm hoping I'm right.
I wish we knew how they voted on taking the cases. THAT would certainly be interesting, wouldn't it?
Needless to say, I'm supremely confident in Scalia, Thomas, or Alito siding against equal treatment under the law. Unless the next Pope happens to authorize them to rule that way.

The comments I've read from court-watchers suggest that Roberts is at least as antagonistic toward civil rights protections as Scalia. But he is concerned about the public image of the court and his own legacy.

I've heard it said that Roberts talked to Justice Thomas about his appearances of partisanship. One would think he might want to have a talk with Scalia after the voting rights outburst.

Is there anything more activist than taking it upon himself to discern the "real" intent of 95% of the legislature and the President? He appears to imagine himself an autocrat--far from the constructionist he claims to be.

Roberts might very well surprise us on the voting rights decision, much has he gritted his teeth and upheld Obamacare.

States rights are going to make for strange bedfellows in the DOMA case. And standing is going to make in interesting story line in Prop 8.

[Francisco dAnconia]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>

Is there anything more activist than taking it upon himself to discern the "real" intent of 95% of the legislature and the President? He appears to imagine himself an autocrat--far from the constructionist he claims to be.

Nonsense, he only carried forward the presumption that a legislature wouldn't vote to START many of these civil rights that the court has thus made to create. He is merely confirming the other end of the spectrum where the congress would also lack the nerve to END any of them. And so the court's duty arises at both ends of the spectrum as long as you are CONSISTENT.

[nhjeff]

Francisco dAnconia wrote:

<quoted text>
Nonsense, he only carried forward the presumption that a legislature wouldn't vote to START many of these civil rights that the court has thus made to create. He is merely confirming the other end of the spectrum where the congress would also lack the nerve to END any of them. And so the court's duty arises at both ends of the spectrum as long as you are CONSISTENT.

The only thing consistent is that Scalia fits the law to his personal preferences.

[Xavier Breath]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
The only thing consistent is that Scalia fits the law to his personal preferences.

Can I get an Amen?

[snyper]

Let's be entertained for a moment and recall this discussion of our Justices ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Xavier Breath]

snyper wrote:

Let's be entertained for a moment and recall this discussion of our Justices ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

When does the new season start?

[WeTheSheeple]

Francisco dAnconia wrote:

<quoted text>
Which is how a statement that the constitution should be amended as it is designed to be done and not by 9 UNELECTED people is cast in your world.
Its like how statement that we should cut all foreign aid can be said to be an attack at Israel (not to take a stance or attribute one to you on THAT issue).
I doubt you realize how slanted your side portrays intellectual honesty at this point...

Hmmmmm, notice how straight white christian men would never have to bother passing a constitutional amendment to get THEIR equal rights.

I guess it's just a total coincidence that Scalia (a straight white christian man) just happens to hold that view of the constitution.

So all his rights just happen to be guaranteed by the current constitution, but everyone else should have to go through the arduous process of amending the constitution to get their rights. Gee, what a happy coincidence for him.

Is that why the founders intentionally made it difficult to amend the constitution? To keep minorities & women from getting equal rights?

Oh that's right, that's why we have a SCOTUS to ensure the rights of minorities & women AREN'T at the mercy of the majority who just happen to get all their rights automatically.

[Xavier Breath]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmmm, notice how straight white christian men would never have to bother passing a constitutional amendment to get THEIR equal rights.
I guess it's just a total coincidence that Scalia (a straight white christian man) just happens to hold that view of the constitution.
So all his rights just happen to be guaranteed by the current constitution, but everyone else should have to go through the arduous process of amending the constitution to get their rights. Gee, what a happy coincidence for him.
Is that why the founders intentionally made it difficult to amend the constitution? To keep minorities & women from getting equal rights?
Oh that's right, that's why we have a SCOTUS to ensure the rights of minorities & women AREN'T at the mercy of the majority who just happen to get all their rights automatically.

Testify!