Ginsburg: Gay marriage shows Constitution's genius

Sep 6, 2013 Full story: NBC12 176

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently officiated at a friend's same-sex wedding, told a Philadelphia audience Friday that growing acceptance of gay marriage reflects the "genius" of the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#146 Sep 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has established various rules to guide exercise of the power of judicial review as it pertains to the constitutionality of laws. Justices are by no means bound by these rules and they have evolved over time. However, the Justices typically don't outright ignore or throw them by the wayside due to the fact the rules are precedent and stare decisis acts to moderate abrupt changes in precedent without a legitimate reason for doing so.
<quoted text>
So? The constitution gave SCOTUS appellate authority as to fact and law. That includes interpreting the meaning of laws and the constitutional which is the supreme law of the land.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it has a legal definition. However, as it is applied by individual or groups of judges in appellate courts, there can be some subjectivity in in determining how it apple to a particular set of circumstances. But that's an issue with the law in general, not just the principle of compelling interest.
<quoted text>
I have no need to. Your view of how the constitution should be interpreted is not the majority view of jurists today. But feel free to continue whining about it, as that's a protected exercise of your right to free speech.
If one examines the procedural rules established by the Supreme Court, there is nothing there that compels a justice to apply the concept of compelling interest. It is simply a judicial philosophy which is not universally followed and not consistently applied nuch like the terms strict constructionist or loose constructionist or any other -ism relating to any interpretational philosophy.

Will you also stick to debating the facts and refrain from your baseless personal attacks which would cost you dearly in any formal debaate. Let me add that calling somebody a whiner is considered a logical fallacy in the form of a personal attack. It adds no substance of value to any debate. You are also committing the appeal to popularity fallacy by stating that just because a majority agrees, it must be correct which we know is not nearly true much of the time. and anyway, do you have any proof for your assertions that strict constructionism is less popular than loose constructionism.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#147 Sep 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But if the imbecile to whom I was responding doesn't even believe the actual words of the constitution even when given what he demands, I doubt he has the critical thinking skills to make such abstract connections.
Is that all you have to offer? Al,l you have is your opinion with no proof or standards which prove your accusation. It seems as if you have conceded that compelling interest is not a mandatory standard for a judge to follow which was a major part of the debate to begin with.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#148 Sep 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But if the imbecile to whom I was responding doesn't even believe the actual words of the constitution even when given what he demands, I doubt he has the critical thinking skills to make such abstract connections.
He's not an imbecile. That's been demonstrated well enough.

This has been one of the best and most stimulating debates on these threads in a very long time.

Notice how we left the trolls in the dust?

We need to do this more often.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#149 Sep 15, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>If one examines the procedural rules established by the Supreme Court, there is nothing there that compels a justice to apply the concept of compelling interest.
Not doing so in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classes in equal protection cases would be deviances from precedent. SCOTUS does not lightly ignore or overturn precedence because it provides guidance to society on how the law is adjudicated.
flbadcatowner wrote:
It is simply a judicial philosophy which is not universally followed and not consistently applied nuch like the terms strict constructionist or loose constructionist or any other -ism relating to any interpretational philosophy.
It's not comparable to philosophies of constitutional interpretation. Asserting that merely proves your ignorance.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Will you also stick to debating the facts and refrain from your baseless personal attacks which would cost you dearly in any formal debate.
This isn't a formal debate but rather a public forum. Different venue, different rules.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Let me add that calling somebody a whiner is considered a logical fallacy in the form of a personal attack.
It adds no substance of value to any debate.
Whining accurately describes what you're doing. And this isn't a debate. At least I don't consider it one. If you wish to do so and abide by the rules of such, that's your prerogative. However, I'm not subject to your personal decisions.
flbadcatowner wrote:
You are also committing the appeal to popularity fallacy by stating that just because a majority agrees, it must be correct which we know is not nearly true much of the time. and anyway
I'm merely asserting the reality of jurisprudence as it exists today. Whining about which philosophy of constitutional interpretation is "correct" is a pointless exercise since it's not provable but rather a matter of subjective opinion.
flbadcatowner wrote:
do you have any proof for your assertions that strict constructionism is less popular than loose constructionism.
The body of SCOTUS rulings as a whole demonstrate the later has predominated in our judicial history rather than the former.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#150 Sep 15, 2013
Can the ad hominem and this would be a worthy debate.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#151 Sep 15, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Is that all you have to offer? Al,l you have is your opinion with no proof or standards which prove your accusation. It seems as if you have conceded that compelling interest is not a mandatory standard for a judge to follow which was a major part of the debate to begin with.
I've conceded nothing. And my citations of constitutional language and SCOTUS procedures are not my "opinion" but rather fact.

You're the one who ignores SCOTUS rulings establishing compelling interest as a legal principle in adjudicating cases involving fundamental rights and suspect classes in equal protection law. The fact it isn't specified in the constitution and doesn't conform to your personal philosophy of constitutional interpretation is irrelevant since the issue is how the law actually works, not how you personally wished it worked.

And those rules are effectively mandatory for federal judges below the SCOTUS level. They do have leeway in how they apply the rules since that generally involves some amount of subjectivity. However, ignoring the rules altogether is creates a high likelihood of an appeal based on an error of law. Only SCOTUS can ignore or overturn the rules they've established and when doing so the court still provides a reason for abandoning one precedent and establishing a new one.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#152 Sep 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not an imbecile. That's been demonstrated well enough.
Really? When his argument consists of impugning SCOTUS rulings and legal principles for non-confomrance to his personal philosophy of constitutional interpretation, it doesn't even qualify as an intelligent discussion in my book. Trying to prove one interpretation philosophy "correct" is no more productive than than trying to prove religious beliefs as fact.
flbadcatowner wrote:
This has been one of the best and most stimulating debates on these threads in a very long time.
I personally don't consider any thread in Topix a debate. So I don't feel obligated to follow debate rules. You of course, are free to do otherwise.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Notice how we left the trolls in the dust?
We need to do this more often.
It's not so much the trolls were left in the dust as they haven't really showed up in force here. Of course that could change as the post count climbs as trolls thrive on attention.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#153 Sep 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
Can the ad hominem and this would be a worthy debate.
You and the other poster can ignore my posts and quit responding and enjoy your personal debate with each other. If you do so, in time I might even get bored and quit responding to posts here..

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#154 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Not doing so in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classes in equal protection cases would be deviances from precedent. SCOTUS does not lightly ignore or overturn precedence because it provides guidance to society on how the law is adjudicated.
<quoted text>
It's not comparable to philosophies of constitutional interpretation. Asserting that merely proves your ignorance.
<quoted text>
This isn't a formal debate but rather a public forum. Different venue, different rules.
<quoted text>You show a tendency to answer questions with red herrings and empty ad hominum attacks. And based on how you went off on Snyper for telling you what you didn't want to hear, who's the whiner? Snyper has conducted himself in a much more gentlemanly manner here than you have. We don't often agree, but we do have mutual respect for each other that we can debate and disagree without losing control. Like it or not, you have already conceded that compelling interest is a frquently used argument and not a mandate in coming to a decision which is at the root of our debate right now.
Whining accurately describes what you're doing. And this isn't a debate. At least I don't consider it one. If you wish to do so and abide by the rules of such, that's your prerogative. However, I'm not subject to your personal decisions.
<quoted text>
I'm merely asserting the reality of jurisprudence as it exists today. Whining about which philosophy of constitutional interpretation is "correct" is a pointless exercise since it's not provable but rather a matter of subjective opinion.
<quoted text>
The body of SCOTUS rulings as a whole demonstrate the later has predominated in our judicial history rather than the former.
Whing? Who is doing the wining based on the way you went off on Snyper when he took you to task for your over the top behavior on the thread? Snyper and I often disagree, but I have never found him to be obnoxious. He is a smart debater who is a challenge at times as he calmly comes up with clever answers instead of getting flustered. Snyper and I have developed a respect for each other much as DNF and I have even though we are on opposite sides much of the time.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#155 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I've conceded nothing. And my citations of constitutional language and SCOTUS procedures are not my "opinion" but rather fact.
You're the one who ignores SCOTUS rulings establishing compelling interest as a legal principle in adjudicating cases involving fundamental rights and suspect classes in equal protection law. The fact it isn't specified in the constitution and doesn't conform to your personal philosophy of constitutional interpretation is irrelevant since the issue is how the law actually works, not how you personally wished it worked.
And those rules are effectively mandatory for federal judges below the SCOTUS level. They do have leeway in how they apply the rules since that generally involves some amount of subjectivity. However, ignoring the rules altogether is creates a high likelihood of an appeal based on an error of law. Only SCOTUS can ignore or overturn the rules they've established and when doing so the court still provides a reason for abandoning one precedent and establishing a new one.
You have admitted that it is not mandatory for a justice to weigh whether there is a compelling interest or not. Is that not a major part of our discussion? You seem to conflate rulings with compulsory standards as nowhere in any of the procedural rules that the Supreme Court follows is there a written directive about any need to apply compelling interest. Some judges apply the principle while others don't.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#156 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>

This isn't a formal debate but rather a public forum. Different venue, different rules.
It still doesn't make your use of logical fallacies any less fallacious.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#157 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has established various rules to guide exercise of the power of judicial review as it pertains to the constitutionality of laws. Justices are by no means bound by these rules and they have evolved over time. However, the Justices typically don't outright ignore or throw them by the wayside due to the fact the rules are precedent and stare decisis acts to moderate abrupt changes in precedent without a legitimate reason for doing so.
Here you have admitted what I have said all along. Compelling interest is a judicial philosophy that no judge is compelled to follow. No ifs, ands or buts. That is what our debate is largely based on. Let me also say that our founding fathers showed no inclination to require that a similar principle was required for justices to follow.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#158 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You and the other poster can ignore my posts and quit responding and enjoy your personal debate with each other. If you do so, in time I might even get bored and quit responding to posts here..
If you leave. don't let the door hit you in the gluteus maximus.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#159 Sep 16, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Another instance showing the anti-American agenda of the homosexuals and Leftists in America has come to light. The Matthew Shepard story was and is a lie.
Matthew Shepard, the pervert found murdered and strung on a fence in Wyoming, then used by the homosexuals as a case of homophobia and violence against gays, allowing them to promote their deviance and put others on the defensive... It seems Matthew was murdered by a gay lover over a large quantity of methamphetamine Matthew had stolen. Once again, the nature of these sick puppies is exposed. Erring on the side of caution and traditional values seems to be the best bet.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
While there are differing theories about just went down with Matthew Shepard, Harvey Milk, another gay hero, once housed a 16 year old runaway for immoral purposes when Milk was 33. While I suspect that anti-gay bias did play into the Matthew Shepard murder, I also suspect that meth abuse and robbery were equal parts of the equation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#160 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? When his argument consists of impugning SCOTUS rulings and legal principles for non-confomrance to his personal philosophy of constitutional interpretation, it doesn't even qualify as an intelligent discussion in my book. Trying to prove one interpretation philosophy "correct" is no more productive than than trying to prove religious beliefs as fact.
<quoted text>
I personally don't consider any thread in Topix a debate. So I don't feel obligated to follow debate rules. You of course, are free to do otherwise.
<quoted text>
It's not so much the trolls were left in the dust as they haven't really showed up in force here. Of course that could change as the post count climbs as trolls thrive on attention.
I didn't say that he's correct, but he's not an imbecile, AND you degrade your argument by saying so.

Let's recall ...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#161 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>While there are differing theories about just went down with Matthew Shepard, Harvey Milk, another gay hero, once housed a 16 year old runaway for immoral purposes when Milk was 33. While I suspect that anti-gay bias did play into the Matthew Shepard murder, I also suspect that meth abuse and robbery were equal parts of the equation.
So, you like to believe that a man should be killed because of what some are claiming now.....some 15 years later, right?

Harvey Milk was a good and decent man, who didn't deserve to be shot and killed......and you claim he once housed a 16 year old runaway for immoral purposes......do you have a source to this supposed evidence?

I wonder if Martin Luther King jr had any skeletons hiding in his closet? or any other great contributors to our History? or do you just like to ditch on those being Gay or Lesbian? I wonder if all of these folks deserved to die just for being Gay or Lesbian:

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#163 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
It is not me who is ignorant of the Constitution.
Funny, you don't give that general impression. Particularly when you seem to be ignorant of the role of the US Supreme Court.
flbadcatowner wrote:
I simply pointed out a few facts that indicated that equal protection is not as all inclusive as you would like to think.
No, you have made assertions, none of which stand up to reality.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Learning about what the issues were when the Constitution and its amendments were being considered will go a long way to better understanding what its framers intended.
At issue is the text of the amendment, not the context in which is was passed. Your originalist standing iis cute, Scalia-like, and childlike, but it doesn't mesh with reality or the holdings of the US Supreme Court over the last 150 years.
flbadcatowner wrote:
If one only considered the text of Amendment XIV and ignored the historical context and background, I suppose one could have a possible argument for declaring that it applies to gay marriage.
This has nothing to do with context, it has to do with the actual text, and reality. The reality is that the legislators did not write that former slaves were entitled to equal protection of the law, they wrote that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law. Anyone with a brain can see that they wanted to ensure that no one could suffer the same indignation that black slaves had when they were held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. Any argument to the contrary is basically an argument fro 21st century slavery. Is that really the argument you mean to make?
flbadcatowner wrote:
That is where we differ as I believe that the Constitution needs to be understood according to its intended purpose and not simply text alone. We have many historical accounts of the debate that went on about how the Constitution and its amendments were debated and how and why they agreed to the final wording which usually makes it very clear how it was intended to be construed.
The intended purpose of the 14th Amendment is clear to anyone who is literate, and it applies not only to former slaves, or even to black people, it applies to all people.

Learn to read.

When you attempt to "reason" away the rights of fellow citizens, you are treading a dangerous road. Should I have a right to vote on your religious freedom, freedom of expression, or ability to own a firearm?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#164 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
Whing? Who is doing the wining based on the way you went off on Snyper when he took you to task for your over the top behavior on the thread?
"Went off"? "Over the top behavior"? Quite the little drama queen, aren't you?
flbadcatowner wrote:
You show a tendency to answer questions with red herrings and empty ad hominum attacks.[QUOTE]
And you ignore the fact I address your points and focus instead on my observations about you.

If you recall, I first repsonded to one of your replies to lides. Are you telling me your reply to lides "Maybe you need to grow up" isn't an ad hominem? And telling lides there were leaks in his/her argument simply because it didn't meet your personal requirement of being specifically written in the constitution is not a shining example of critical thinking or logic when the reality is it isn't and never has been a requirement for how SCOTUS adjudicates the law or interprets the constitution.

You told lides "You spewed a lot of rhetoric without logically presenting any valid points." In fact, lids did present valid points. In fact, you didn't address them except to dismiss them for not conforming to your personal philosophy of constitutional interpretation. In fact, you are a hypocrite for doing the very thing of which you accuse others.

[QUOTE who="flbadcatowner"] And based on how you went off on Snyper for telling you what you didn't want to hear, who's the whiner?
Apparently unlike you, I realize this is a public forum and any poster can respond to another poster as they wish. In my replies to Snyper, I pointed out that I view these threads differently than he or you do and though you both may consider your exchanges a personal debate other posters aren't required to do so, nor are they required to refrain from responding to your posts.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Snyper has conducted himself in a much more gentlemanly manner here than you have.

If you don't like the manner in which I post to you, you're under no obligation to respond.
flbadcatowner wrote:
We don't often agree, but we do have mutual respect for each other that we can debate and disagree without losing control.
Bully for you.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Like it or not, you have already conceded that compelling interest is a frquently used argument and not a mandate in coming to a decision which is at the root of our debate right now.
I've conceded no such thing. That's simply your wishful thinking.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Snyper and I often disagree, but I have never found him to be obnoxious. He is a smart debater who is a challenge at times as he calmly comes up with clever answers instead of getting flustered. Snyper and I have developed a respect for each other much as DNF and I have even though we are on opposite sides much of the time.
Again, good for you. We obviously haven't reached that point and I personally doubt we ever will given the infrequency of our encounters.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#165 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>You have admitted that it is not mandatory for a justice to weigh whether there is a compelling interest or not.
If by "justice" you're referring to a member of SCOTUS, what I've said is:

"Justices typically don't outright ignore or throw them by the wayside due to the fact the rules are precedent and stare decisis acts to moderate abrupt changes in precedent without a legitimate reason for doing so."

"Not doing so in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classes in equal protection cases would be deviances from precedent. SCOTUS does not lightly ignore or overturn precedence because it provides guidance to society on how the law is adjudicated."

"Only SCOTUS can ignore or overturn the rules they've established and when doing so the court still provides a reason for abandoning one precedent and establishing a new one."

The rules established by SCOTUS are precedent both for its own members as well as judges of other federal courts. For SCOTUS alone, they are not mandatory in that a majority can establish a new precedent.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Is that not a major part of our discussion?
To whom does "our" refer?
flbadcatowner wrote:
You seem to conflate rulings with compulsory standards as nowhere in any of the procedural rules that the Supreme Court follows is there a written directive about any need to apply compelling interest.
The standards of judicial review, including compelling interest in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classes, ARE rulings and therefore precedent with which lower courts are expected to follow and apply and which SCOTUS can overrule only by a majority vote to set a new precedent.
flbadcatowner wrote:
Some judges apply the principle while others don't.
Judges of lower courts that don't apply judicial standards of review are at risk of having their rulings appealed for errors in law. One of the reasons for which SCOTUS will grant cert is to address rulings that conflict with previous SCOTUS decisions as noted in rule 10a of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States:

"a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court."

link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013Rules...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#166 Sep 16, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>It still doesn't make your use of logical fallacies any less fallacious.
And ignoring the points I made that addressed your assertions doesn't negate their existence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Islanders protest gay-marriage ban - Hawaii News (Feb '09) 18 min Joe Balls 165
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 36 min texcota 144
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 41 min Seven Fleas 56,627
SF gay pride event celebrates 40th anniversary (Jun '10) 1 hr happyass 112
GOP leader: NC officials can refuse to marry gays 2 hr Rainbow Kid 21
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 3 hr green3 28
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,063
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 5 hr cpeter1313 1,430
Gay kiss couple 'thrown off bus' 17 hr Lickalotta Lulu 27

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE