Teh Gheys Thread

[Slade]

You guys should study this kinda of thing more closely, the balance was created so no power could overrun another,

Or to step outside the boundaries of what it is permitted to do.

however is common sense that it is impossible to to isolate them completely,

That does not excuse overreach.

even the power protecting the very constitution is not the legislative, but the judicial,

Which is why it's an issue when the majority opinion opts for its own "reasoned judgment" instead of the Constitution.

so the choices are not politic, or the least political possible, democracy is such fickle concept, there is a reason why the mass don't win sometimes, to not alienate the least represented members.

I'm well aware of the tyranny of mob rule.

Getting angry at it, and consider as a maneuver, heheh quite convenient, people tend to forget how a country runs, it is not because you are not seeing that the discussions are not there.

???

It doesn't change anything, if it was a maneuver or not, being or not being, approval of inconvenient stuff happens either way, with a distraction or not, at least the distraction usually means some good.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Ramus]

Or to step outside the boundaries of what it is permitted to do.
That does not excuse overreach.
Which is why it's an issue when the majority opinion opts for its own "reasoned judgment" instead of the Constitution.

Marriage is not a new right, they simply extended the interpretation, so I don't see why, the Judiciary, the power competent to examining the constitutionality of the acts, is overreaching.

Giving new understanding for old laws is not "reasoned judgment" is pretty much what they can do to avoid the need for new laws which are very slow to make and the process is even slower, which would be problematic because them the Legislative would be full of non issues.

But then again, it seems it is much preferable for a slow and unnecessary Law Project, than simply extending a existing right.

???

I don't see how that would be aimed at you, but ok.

The ends do not justify the means.

Heheh, how idealistic, sadly the world is not in black and white thus, "The ends do not justify the means." is not always a true sentence.

 

[Slade]

Marriage is not a new right, they simply extended the interpretation, so I don't see why, the Judiciary, the power competent to examining the constitutionality of the acts, is overreaching

Read Thomas' dissent for why the 14th Amendment is not applicable for this ruling. Read Scalia's and Roberts' for why this is an overreach. This is a matter for state legislatures and the democratic process, not judicial fiat.

Giving new understanding for old laws is not "reasoned judgment" is pretty much what they can do to avoid the need for new laws which are very slow to make and the process is even slower, which would be problematic because them the Legislative would be full of non issues.

"[R]easoned judgment" is a direct quote from the opinion of the court: "Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect." It shows both disregard for the role of the court (to rule on law as it is, not as it should be, for some definition of 'should') and an embarrassing lack of understanding of the nature of respect. Government does not grant dignity.

But then again, it seems it is much preferable for a slow and unnecessary Law Project, than simply extending a existing right.

All 50 states recognize the right to have a marriage ceremony performed. It is not a right to obtain a government-issued marriage certificate.

I don't see how that would be aimed at you, but ok.

I didn't claim it was aimed at me. Just that it made absolutely no sense.

Heheh, how idealistic, sadly the world is not in black and white thus, "The ends do not justify the means." is not always a true sentence.

Note the lack of the word "always" in what I actually said.

 

[Ramus]

Your whole argument is based on the concept that the separation of the Three Powers is tangible, that is a interesting point of view....

Snip

It is really easy to be impersonal about it, when you don't think of the ramifications, if were left to each State on its own, problems such as rights of a partner would be ignored. People being striped from the right to use their partner Healthy Insurance, or raise their child they adopted together. But of course lets all fallow the process, because never in the story of the world people did that, right?

Oh please, stop being purist, that ship sailed a long time ago.

All 50 states recognize the right to have a marriage ceremony performed. It is not a right to obtain a government-issued marriage certificate.

Seriously, you are mad at a technicality?

Note the lack of the word "always" in what I actually said.

Oh dear, as a stand alone sentence that was not implied at all.

Government does not grant dignity.

Geneva Convention would disagree, and isn't the US one of the signatories?

 

[Slade]

Your whole argument is based on the concept that the separation of the Three Powers is tangible, that is a interesting point of view....

I don't think you know what "tangible" means, because I've said nothing that comes even close to what you claim I'm arguing.

It is really easy to be impersonal about it, when you don't think of the ramifications,

You're implying that I'm not thinking of the ramifications, which is false.

if were left to each State on its own, problems such as rights of a partner would be ignored.

You're not paying attention. The Constitution does not define "partner", nor does it endorse one particular definition of marriage. The majority ruling is making the legislative claim that it does, in clear violation of the Constitution.

People being striped from the right to use their partner Healthy Insurance, or raise their child they adopted together. But of course lets all fallow the process, because never in the story of the world people did that, right?

This is completely unrelated to the objections to this ruling. See Roberts' dissent.

Oh please, stop being purist, that ship sailed a long time ago.

One cannot selectively enforce the Constitution without eroding its entirety.

Seriously, you are mad at a technicality?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's not a technicality.

Oh dear, as a stand alone sentence that was not implied at all.

No. Your inability to parse out the logical structure of an argument does not reflect on those who are able.

Geneva Convention would disagree, and isn't the US one of the signatories?

Point to where the Geneva Convention makes the claim that human dignity is a privilege granted by government rather than being innate. Or, instead of wasting your time trying to find something that doesn't exist, go read Justice Thomas' dissent; it's a good crash-course for people like you who do not understand what rights are or what "liberty" is referring to in the 14th Amendment.