Scalia - SCOTUS is America's Ruler

[kent]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-court-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF

In part:

Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule.

Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia blasts the majority opinion as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“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 writes in a footnote needling the majority for its bombastic language.

[Virgil Showlion]

Society has no need for disciplined legal reasoning.

"Love wins." Pass the next fortune cookie.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2015 16:07:33 GMT -5 kent said:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-court-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF

In part:

Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule.

Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia blasts the majority opinion as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“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 writes in a footnote needling the majority for its bombastic language.

utter rubbish. 

[kittensaver]

Jun 26, 2015 16:29:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 26, 2015 16:07:33 GMT -5 kent said:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-court-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF

In part:

utter rubbish. 

Agreed. This is no more than the justices taking cheap pot shots at each other over a contentious issue.

If it is the will of the people to overturn this ruling, there are means provided within our system of government to do so. But clearly the will is not there, so it ain't gonna happen. Too bad, so sad . . .

[grumpyhermit]

But extending first amendment protections to corporations is totally okay. Alright then.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2015 16:33:36 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jun 26, 2015 16:29:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

utter rubbish. 

Agreed. This is no more than the justices taking cheap pot shots at each other over a contentious issue.

If it is the will of the people to overturn this ruling, there are means provided within our system of government to do so. But clearly the will is not there, so it ain't gonna happen. Too bad, so sad . . .

reads like sour grapes to me, as well.

[Tennesseer]

Today's constitutional judges are tomorrow's activist judges and vice versa, depending upon mine and yours opinion of the issue in front of them to be decided.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2015 16:42:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Today's constitutional judges are tomorrow's activist judges and vice versa, depending upon mine and yours opinion of the issue in front of them to be decided.

precisely.  when he isn't busy being such a surly old bastard, he might point out his OWN DISSENTING COMMENT in Lawrence -vs Texas, when he quite accurately saw this day coming.  TWELVE YEARS AGO.

edit: for those too lazy to look it up, here you go:

genius.com/Justice-antonin-scalia-lawrence-v-texas-dissent-annotated#note-3700011

from the discussion of the dissent (right margin):

However ironic it may be, in this dissent, Scalia seems to have made a good case for striking down laws against same-sex marriage as well, writing:

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising. Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

(Second to last paragraph)

Scalia is certainly capable of reasoning the argument through, even when he is on the losing side, should he CHOOSE to do so.

[thyme4change]

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares'


WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

{{read the rest here:  www.theonion.com/article/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares-31812 }}  LOL.

[Phoenix84]

Sounds pretty on point to me.

Seems like increasingly were governed by the courts and executive orders rather than laws passed by a duely elected congress.

It seems like that's the order of today, if you can't get your agenda passed, you issue executive orders or issue court rulings to get it passed.

So much for checks and balances...

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2015 17:11:38 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sounds pretty on point to me.

Seems like increasingly were governed by the courts and executive orders rather than laws passed by a duely elected congress.

It seems like that's the order of today, if you can't get your agenda passed, you issue executive orders or issue court rulings to get it passed.

So much for checks and balances...

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 30, 2015 17:11:38 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sounds pretty on point to me.

Seems like increasingly were governed by the courts and executive orders rather than laws passed by a duely elected congress.

It seems like that's the order of today, if you can't get your agenda passed, you issue executive orders or issue court rulings to get it passed.

So much for checks and balances...

i really don't get this position at all.  the SCOTUS is there to resolve conflicts.  they don't make law.  they simply affirm one side or another of a competing argument.  that is what was done here, and that is what is always done, as long as i can remember.  i don't see any differences between these cases and ones that were argued in 1818 in that respect.  if you do, please be specific:

how is the SCOTUS making law?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 30, 2015 19:36:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 30, 2015 17:11:38 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sounds pretty on point to me.

Seems like increasingly were governed by the courts and executive orders rather than laws passed by a duely elected congress.

It seems like that's the order of today, if you can't get your agenda passed, you issue executive orders or issue court rulings to get it passed.

So much for checks and balances...

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

a huge number of people seem to think the 14th should go.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2015 20:55:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 30, 2015 19:36:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

a huge number of people seem to think the 14th should go.

I wonder how most of them would fee if it DID go and then some inequality was visited upon them...

[Tennesseer]

Jun 30, 2015 21:07:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 30, 2015 20:55:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

a huge number of people seem to think the 14th should go.

I wonder how most of them would fee if it DID go and then some inequality was visited upon them...

They'd be a 'screamin for help from those activist judges.

[Phoenix84]

Jun 30, 2015 19:36:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 30, 2015 17:11:38 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sounds pretty on point to me.

Seems like increasingly were governed by the courts and executive orders rather than laws passed by a duely elected congress.

It seems like that's the order of today, if you can't get your agenda passed, you issue executive orders or issue court rulings to get it passed.

So much for checks and balances...

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

I was speaking in general terms, from Obama's executive order amnesty to Obamacare to Gay marriage.  It all reeks of "making policy" without the consent of the duly elected representatives of congress.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2015 22:26:51 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jun 30, 2015 19:36:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

I was speaking in general terms, from Obama's executive order amnesty to Obamacare to Gay marriage.  It all reeks of "making policy" without the consent of the duly elected representatives of congress.

And that's why I said I'd agree with you if this was on the Obamacare thread... because the Obamacare ruling had nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with legislating from the bench.

This ruling, on gay marriage, however was VERY MUCH appropriate because denial of their right to marry is a painfully obvious denial of equal rights... something granted to EVERY American citizen... not just the straight ones.

If Joe can marry the person he loves (Jane), then equality demands that Steve can marry the person he loves (Brad).
If Beth can marry the person she loves (David), then equality demands that Sue can marry the person she loves (Nicole).

ETA: see how the bolded parts are equal?

[Deleted]

Notice hobby lobby didn't make your list....

[djAdvocate]

Jun 30, 2015 22:26:51 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jun 30, 2015 19:36:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

I was speaking in general terms, from Obama's executive order amnesty to Obamacare to Gay marriage.  It all reeks of "making policy" without the consent of the duly elected representatives of congress.

Obama had fewer EO's than Bush.  in fact, he had the fewest since GROVER CLEVELAND.

fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Obama never granted amnesty.  but Reagan did, to 3.2 MILLION people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Obama ran opposed to gay marriage, but then shifted his position as popularity for the idea increased.  since Obama is supposed to represent us, as US citizens, this trajectory makes sense to me.  he is not there to protect traditional values, he is there to move with the times.

finally, no meaningful policy can get through congress right now.  Obama only looks imperial because this congress is utterly useless.  if you step back, and look at the pantheon of presidents, Obama is less activist, less imperial, and less unilateral than other presidents.  however, since congress is basically getting NOTHING done, it looks like he is basically running the show.  which, relatively speaking, he IS.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 30, 2015 22:57:15 GMT -5 oped said:

Notice hobby lobby didn't make your list....

corporations are people too, my friend. 

[deziloooooo]

Jun 26, 2015 16:42:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Today's constitutional judges are tomorrow's activist judges and vice versa, depending upon mine and yours opinion of the issue in front of them to be decided.

You hit it right on the nail head Tenn ...It took me a while to find this column by David G . Savage..{ He has been covering the Supreme Court since "97 " for the LA times..the Washing ton Bureau and this is a great explanation just on that very topic...}  suggest anyone interested in SCOTUS decisions and bringing up what is right and what is wrong about them should give it a gander.

With out posting examples of both sides..judicial restraint vs intervention...they are in his article and depending..the court over time has done both...shown restraint and in other times intervened with their decisions...Basically , unlike how some folks feel everything should be one way or the other ..the reality is.."depending"..and don't ask me to define the "depending .."..but "depending"..court will and does  go both ways which means that the constitution is not done in stone but is a living growing document and the interpertation of...well that's in the hands of the nine Judges and their decisions ..well "depending "...


www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marriage-analysis-20150629-story.html#page=1

[deziloooooo]

Jun 30, 2015 20:55:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 30, 2015 17:11:38 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sounds pretty on point to me.

Seems like increasingly were governed by the courts and executive orders rather than laws passed by a duely elected congress.

It seems like that's the order of today, if you can't get your agenda passed, you issue executive orders or issue court rulings to get it passed.

So much for checks and balances...

i really don't get this position at all.  the SCOTUS is there to resolve conflicts.  they don't make law.  they simply affirm one side or another of a competing argument.  that is what was done here, and that is what is always done, as long as i can remember.  i don't see any differences between these cases and ones that were argued in 1818 in that respect.  if you do, please be specific:

how is the SCOTUS making law?

I just posted a link on a post by Tenn on that question....here I will do it again...answers how SCOTUS  does go both ways ...judicial restraints and at times seems to be intervening...


www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marriage-analysis-20150629-story.html#page=1

[Virgil Showlion]

Seemed pertinent.

[billisonboard]

Jul 1, 2015 8:57:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Seemed pertinent.

Which is why I concern myself mainly with who they will appoint and consent to with my votes for president and senator.

[grumpyhermit]

[swamp]

Brown vs. Board of Education was judicial activism. Is there anyone here who thinks it was a bad decision?

[garion2003]

Jun 30, 2015 22:26:51 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jun 30, 2015 19:36:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'd agree with you if this was on the recent Obamacare ruling thread... However, THIS ruling was based on a preset Constitutional ground. The equal protection guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it? Then convince enough people that equal protection needs to be done away with to get that amendment repealed... but... be careful what you wish for. Because then we could go back to "the good old days" of discriminating against women and minorities too.

I was speaking in general terms, from Obama's executive order amnesty to Obamacare to Gay marriage.  It all reeks of "making policy" without the consent of the duly elected representatives of congress.

I thought the Affordable Care Act WAS passed by Congress?

[swamp]

Jul 1, 2015 12:50:20 GMT -5 garion2003 said:

Jun 30, 2015 22:26:51 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I was speaking in general terms, from Obama's executive order amnesty to Obamacare to Gay marriage.  It all reeks of "making policy" without the consent of the duly elected representatives of congress.

I thought the Affordable Care Act WAS passed by Congress?

It was. Don't get facts get in the way of a good rant.

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2015 22:57:15 GMT -5 oped said:

Notice hobby lobby didn't make your list....

Which list?

ETA: for the record, the Hobby Lobby decision was right AND wrong. Constitutionally no one can be forced to do things against their religion... so in that sense it was right. Constitutionally no religion can be elevated above any others (including a lack of belief)... so in that sense it was wrong.

The proper ruling should have been "Since it would be unconstitutional to enforce this upon people of strong faith, and since it would also be unconstitutional to give people of strong faith an exemption where none exists for those that don't believe in a higher power, the relevant law is stricken for everyone."

[Deleted]

List of horrifying judgements by activist justices .