Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: ‘Court Is Not a Legislature’: Roberts Rips Gay Marriage Ruling....

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    ‘Court Is Not a Legislature’: Roberts Rips Gay Marriage Ruling....

    ‘Court is not a legislature’: Roberts rips gay marriage ruling, day after he backed ObamaCare

    A day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided squarely with the Obama administration on the health care overhaul, the same jurist came out swinging against the court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

    In his dissenting opinion -- which he read from the bench for the first time in his nearly 10 years as chief justice -- Roberts charged Friday that the court had no right to intervene in what should be a democratic debate by the people, at the state level, over same-sex marriage.

    "This court is not a legislature," he wrote. "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

    As for the state's role, he said: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."

    The dissent underscored how unpredictable -- and to his critics, confounding -- the chief justice, appointed by a Republican president, can be.

    He has earned many critics on the right for, twice, helping save vital elements of the Affordable Care Act -- conservative justices effectively accused him of twisting the law to save ObamaCare in Thursday's ruling. But in his dissent on the 5-4 gay marriage ruling, Roberts accused others on the court of, similarly, overstepping their bounds.

    "It does sound like two different people," said Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News.

    Roberts wrote in Friday's dissent: "The Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration.

    "... But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens --- through the democratic process -- to adopt their view. That ends today."

    Roberts was joined by two other conservative justices on the court -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- who each filed their own dissenting opinions.

    "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept," Roberts wrote.

    The other dissenting justices were no less critical.

    Scalia wrote: "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."

    And Samuel Alito wrote: "The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women.

    "Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."

    But Roberts' dissent was striking, a day after his opinion upheld ObamaCare subsidies. That case centered on whether the language of the law, which technically limited subsidies to policies in exchanges set up by the states, could also apply to policies bought through the federal exchange. Roberts and the six-justice majority said Congress intended subsidies to be available for all.

    His conservative colleagues viewed this as an overreach.

    "We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Scalia wrote, joined by Thomas and Alito.

    But on gay marriage, the conservatives stood together, particular on the issue of the high court's right to decide what they said was a state issue.

    On this, the majority strongly disagreed.

    "The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who read the majority opinion. As for the court's role, he said:

    "The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act."
    P.S. There is at least a remote possibility that SCOTUS could become a mini legislature under the right circumstances.

    Related:
    Last edited by allodial; 09-08-15 at 08:30 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  2. #2
    The ruling is correct, IMO, for the question asked. The whole problem is that States have no business whatsoever recognizing any marriages. Marriage has been transformed into some type of regulated occupation. If the people are equal under the law, why should marriage matter. It is a 'fact' of the case, to be determined as any other fact, when required.

  3. #3
    A reasonable solution would be for U.S. District Court clerks to issue the marriage licenses rather than the States. What is interesting is, lawful Biblical marriages and common law marriage are not recognized by most U.S. States but yet "gays" claim discrimination from the very people who are discriminated against by the U.S. States--they don't necessarily get treated as husbands or wives in the event of death or for probate purposes unless some estate planning arrangement is made.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  4. #4
    It is correct that the States don't recognize the Biblical common law marriages. They are recognizing statutory marriages. It is a perversion of marriage.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by pumpkin View Post
    It is correct that the States don't recognize the Biblical common law marriages. They are recognizing statutory marriages. It is a perversion of marriage.
    Key thing is, the Christians were discriminated against all along. The "Homosexual Agenda" PR campaign is full of lies. On the related note of common law marriage:

    Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Jersey (1939), New Mexico (1860),[13] New York (1933,[14] also 1902[15]–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).

    The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana, which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent jurisdiction.
    It might be significant to note that French civil code is a codification of Roman law. Roman law is said to be "civil law". Civil law is said to be admiralty law.
    Last edited by allodial; 09-08-15 at 05:20 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  6. #6
    Gay folks are persons Everyone who claims a Person needs a licence to break Gods law the judicial crew are a Man,s JUDGES or JUDICE or JUDAS all silver lined one person at a time.

  7. #7
    Aw shucks.....now's as good a time as any to drop this one in here......



  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by xparte View Post
    Gay folks are persons Everyone who claims a Person needs a licence to break Gods law the judicial crew are a Man,s JUDGES or JUDICE or JUDAS all silver lined one person at a time.
    They're all trying to enter in through the back door.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  9. #9
    a licence for the front door if thats what it takes. Well its how much a prenuptial u fixin to defend when that backdoors getting slamed in court . Gay days just another legal twisted day in court full of legislative perversions 9 /10 of a law shove this where it belongs judge

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •