independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 1st Sep 2014 1:54pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Why banning Gay marriage IS unconstitutional
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 03/19/12 12:56pm

smoothcriminal
12

avatar

Why banning Gay marriage IS unconstitutional

http://forum.nationstates...p;t=169661

So the Republican Party is against gay marriage because they call it:

An attack upon the sanctity of traditional marriage



Well to you all who think that laws banning two men/ two women from getting married are fine and they're not Un-constitutional, well there is a problem with that, mainly if you use the word sanctity because in the dictionary if you've ever hard of one, it defines sanctity

sanc·ti·ty   [sangk-ti-tee]
noun, plural -ties.
1.
holiness, saintliness, or godliness.
2.
sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple.
3.
a sacred thing.



sanctity = sacred

sa·cred   [sey-krid]
adjective
1.
devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2.
entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3.
pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.



Sanctity = sacred = religious

First Amendment of the US Constitution
Congress shall make no law of respecting or establishment of religion



Banning gay marriage, because it goes against the sanctity of traditional marriage so your entire point of banning gays couples from marrying is void because using the word sanctity as a reason would be making laws of establishing a religion, which is Un-Constitutional. Federal law > state law. Supreme Court > federal Law > state law.

Thus I have no more to say.

So everyone do you agree?

[Edited 3/19/12 13:23pm]

My new album is available HERE: http://itunes.apple.com/a...mpt=uo%3D1
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 03/19/12 1:17pm

rudedog

avatar

Good work, i agree. Because our first amendment, religion should not be intermixed with government, but that hasn't stopped it from using religion to get votes. So this would be a war on the establishment as it is. That's gonna be very hard to sell to religious politicians/judges in all three branches of government.

44 Presidents and they are all self-proclaimed Christians. Really? Does anyone feel that's hard to believe? Anyone else feel it should not be relevant to holding office?

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 03/19/12 1:23pm

smoothcriminal
12

avatar

rudedog said:

Good work, i agree. Because our first amendment, religion should not be intermixed with government, but that hasn't stopped it from using religion to get votes. So this would be a war on the establishment as it is. That's gonna be very hard to sell to religious politicians/judges in all three branches of government.

44 Presidents and they are all self-proclaimed Christians. Really? Does anyone feel that's hard to believe? Anyone else feel it should not be relevant to holding office?

There has to be at least one non-Christian among that group.

My new album is available HERE: http://itunes.apple.com/a...mpt=uo%3D1
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 03/19/12 1:30pm

cborgman

avatar

14th amendment to the US constitution:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

it really is as simple as that.

"I am almost never wrong"
"it is hard being the smartest person in the room but it is a cross i am willing to bare."


-OnlyNDaUsa
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 03/19/12 1:43pm

Spinlight

avatar

This is the fundamental principle behind the resistance, IMO.

I have long argued that marriage's religious history excludes it from being adminstered by the government anyway. And equally confusing, marriage's political history is about as old as time itself.

The real argument is not whether we should ban anyone from being married rather we should define marriage's purpose as either a religious affectation/ritual or otherwise. If religion is considered the source of marriage, then the government needs to respectfully stay away (and that includes tax benefits/penalties dependent upon relationship status).

In all likelihood, given our tax system it may be appropriate to strip marriage of its religious connotation which you will find many people arguing for considering there is no evidence to actually suggest that marriage is solely a religious institution.

Religion has extended its prehensile cat penis deep into our government, though, and chopping it off will cause a violent reaction.

stoned

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 03/19/12 2:44pm

StonedImmacula
te

avatar

Here's the problem with the constitution. The writers NEVER intended for the 14th Ammendment (or anything else for that matter) to apply to gay marriage. The shit never crossed their minds. If it did, there would have been an asterisk saying "This does not apply to homosexuals..." And the whole freedom of religion thing...what they meant to say was "You have the freedom to worship anyway you wish and the government can't interfere, BUT YOU ARE EXPECTED TO WORSHIP GOD!" That's why it's written in the pledge..."one nation, UNDER GOD!"

The same as "we have a right to bear arms." If they had a crystal ball, they would have put an asterisk saying something to the effect of "when kids in the ghetto get ahold of military grade weapons and started shooting each other over the color of a rag, we reserve the right to repeal this ammendment". Try to change that shit now..."BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS..."

My point is that we are using an ANCIENT document to guide our lives. Hell...when it was written, we black folks were considered animals and the shit didnt apply to us. The entire thing needs to be reworked, along with the governmental structure.

I understand where the OP is coming from, but using that piece of shit paper (that's all it amounts to now IMO) to argue 21st century problems is useless.

blunt music She has robes and she has monkeys, lazy diamond studded flunkies.... music blunt
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 03/19/12 7:08pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

smoothcriminal12 said:

http://forum.nationstates...p;t=169661

So the Republican Party is against gay marriage because they call it:

An attack upon the sanctity of traditional marriage



Well to you all who think that laws banning two men/ two women from getting married are fine and they're not Un-constitutional, well there is a problem with that, mainly if you use the word sanctity because in the dictionary if you've ever hard of one, it defines sanctity



Sanctity = sacred = religious

First Amendment of the US Constitution
Congress shall make no law of respecting or establishment of religion



Banning gay marriage, because it goes against the sanctity of traditional marriage so your entire point of banning gays couples from marrying is void because using the word sanctity as a reason would be making laws of establishing a religion, which is Un-Constitutional. Federal law > state law. Supreme Court > federal Law > state law.

Thus I have no more to say.

So everyone do you agree?

[Edited 3/19/12 13:23pm]

Of course not.

It is not "making laws of establishing a religion" whatever that means.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 03/19/12 7:09pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

rudedog said:

Good work, i agree. Because our first amendment, religion should not be intermixed with government, but that hasn't stopped it from using religion to get votes. So this would be a war on the establishment as it is. That's gonna be very hard to sell to religious politicians/judges in all three branches of government.

44 Presidents and they are all self-proclaimed Christians. Really? Does anyone feel that's hard to believe? Anyone else feel it should not be relevant to holding office?

It is apparently relevant to voters, which is the only reason it matters.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 03/20/12 10:34am

rudedog

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

rudedog said:

Good work, i agree. Because our first amendment, religion should not be intermixed with government, but that hasn't stopped it from using religion to get votes. So this would be a war on the establishment as it is. That's gonna be very hard to sell to religious politicians/judges in all three branches of government.

44 Presidents and they are all self-proclaimed Christians. Really? Does anyone feel that's hard to believe? Anyone else feel it should not be relevant to holding office?

It is apparently relevant to voters, which is the only reason it matters.

Well yeah, the south,the red states do, but do you?

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 03/20/12 12:26pm

Tremolina

All posts and opinions are wrong.

The only relevant legal question here is whether any LAW, state or federal, that sanctions gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

The US constitution doesn't say: Congres shall make no laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. Nor does it sanction it. It's simply silent on the issue because back then the idea alone of gay marriage didn't even exist.

Thus there is plenty of room and the same time no room for the SCOTUS to either block any such laws or let them pass. The right course would be to let it pass because it's out of their jurisdiction. But there is no guarantee, simply put because the SCOTUS is not a legal court of justice but a political one.

Time to put them to the test?

[Edited 3/20/12 12:27pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 03/20/12 1:04pm

Spinlight

avatar

Tremolina said:

All posts and opinions are wrong.

The only relevant legal question here is whether any LAW, state or federal, that sanctions gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

The US constitution doesn't say: Congres shall make no laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. Nor does it sanction it. It's simply silent on the issue because back then the idea alone of gay marriage didn't even exist.

Thus there is plenty of room and the same time no room for the SCOTUS to either block any such laws or let them pass. The right course would be to let it pass because it's out of their jurisdiction. But there is no guarantee, simply put because the SCOTUS is not a legal court of justice but a political one.

Time to put them to the test?

[Edited 3/20/12 12:27pm]

Is marriage a religious institution by your definition?

It is relevant to the argument being made by the conservative right. It's a religious institution and religion is defined as such: blah blah blah. If religion did not have the jurisdiction to claim what marriage is or isn't, this wouldn't be an argument one way or the other.

The OP's post makes sense despite any minor clerical errors in the way the courts handle themselves.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 03/20/12 7:17pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

rudedog said:

SUPRMAN said:

It is apparently relevant to voters, which is the only reason it matters.

Well yeah, the south,the red states do, but do you?

Do I think it's personally relevant. No.

Professing Christianity means nothing when you act in contradiction to what you profess.

To quote Bono, "I must be an acrobat, to talk like this and act like that."

"Christians" holding the office have made it irrelevant. Their beliefs desert them in the Oval Office even as they repeatedly give lip service to them.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 03/20/12 7:26pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Tremolina said:

All posts and opinions are wrong.

The only relevant legal question here is whether any LAW, state or federal, that sanctions gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

The US constitution doesn't say: Congres shall make no laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. Nor does it sanction it. It's simply silent on the issue because back then the idea alone of gay marriage didn't even exist.

Thus there is plenty of room and the same time no room for the SCOTUS to either block any such laws or let them pass. The right course would be to let it pass because it's out of their jurisdiction. But there is no guarantee, simply put because the SCOTUS is not a legal court of justice but a political one.

Time to put them to the test?

[Edited 3/20/12 12:27pm]

BS

(Here comes the Bush election case . . . . outlier.)

It is not a "court of justice" either. It playe toe role of an appellate court and acts as a court of original jurisdiction on a narrow range of cases.

You can present new evidence before the SCOTUS. SCOTUS may appear political by which cases they choose to hear but the obviously can't hear them all so they have to pick and choose. The majority of the time they get it right, but not always.

[Edited]

There are three separate routes that cases follow to reach the Supreme Court. The first, and least common, is a case under the Court's "original jurisdiction". "Original jurisdiction" means that the Supreme Court hears the case directly, without the case going through an intermediate stage. The original jurisdiction is set forth in the United States Code . The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes between different states -- meaning that no other federal court can hear such a dispute. An example of such a case is the 1998 case of State of New Jersey v. St...f New York . In this case, the two states litigated the question of which state had jurisdiction over Ellis Island . "Original jurisdiction" cases are rare, with the Court hearing one or two cases each term.

The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is on appeal from a circuit court. A party seeking to appeal a decision of a circuit court can file a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari . "Certiorari" is a Latin word meaning "to inform", in the sense that the petition informs the Court of the request for review.

Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases it will hear. The Supreme Court gets thousands of petitions for certiorari, but only issues a writ in a fraction of cases. The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so. Justices usually take the importance of a given case and the need to issue a final decision before deciding to grant certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant certiorari, the petition is denied. If a case is "denied cert", the decision of the lower court is final.

The third way in which a case can reach the Supreme Court is through an appeal from a state supreme court. Each state has its own supreme court that is the final authority on state law. (However, each state does not always call its highest court the "Supreme Court"; in New York , for example, the highest court is the Court of Appeals.) The Supreme Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue of state law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where the state court's ruling deals with Constitutional issues.

[Edited]

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 03/20/12 7:41pm

babynoz

avatar

I wholeheartedly agree that marriage should not be a function of the state. Any two consenting adults who want to form a domestic partnership should be able to do so, just like people record deeds or register their corporations for example. The courthouse shouldn't even be in the business of performing any type of ceremony. People who want to receive the sacrament or formalize the agreement some other way could have the option of going to a church, notary, sea captain, etc.

"Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men"....Demosthenes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 03/20/12 8:03pm

cborgman

avatar

babynoz said:

I wholeheartedly agree that marriage should not be a function of the state. Any two consenting adults who want to form a domestic partnership should be able to do so, just like people record deeds or register their corporations for example. The courthouse shouldn't even be in the business of performing any type of ceremony. People who want to receive the sacrament or formalize the agreement some other way could have the option of going to a church, notary, sea captain, etc.

nod

HOWEVER; gov't needs to get in or get or instead of performing halfway. either make all civil "marriages" "civil unions" to please the bigots, point out that civil marriage is it's ownj institution, or get out completely. providing tax breaks and legal protections for hetero (but not homo) relationships is unconstitutional and illegal.

either declare civil marriage as marriage for all, make civil marriage into "civil unions" for all, or stop completely.

"I am almost never wrong"
"it is hard being the smartest person in the room but it is a cross i am willing to bare."


-OnlyNDaUsa
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 03/20/12 8:12pm

babynoz

avatar

cborgman said:

babynoz said:

I wholeheartedly agree that marriage should not be a function of the state. Any two consenting adults who want to form a domestic partnership should be able to do so, just like people record deeds or register their corporations for example. The courthouse shouldn't even be in the business of performing any type of ceremony. People who want to receive the sacrament or formalize the agreement some other way could have the option of going to a church, notary, sea captain, etc.

nod

HOWEVER; gov't needs to get in or get or instead of performing halfway. either make all civil "marriages" "civil unions" to please the bigots, point out that civil marriage is it's ownj institution, or get out completely. providing tax breaks and legal protections for hetero (but not homo) relationships is unconstitutional and illegal.

either declare civil marriage as marriage for all, make civil marriage into "civil unions" for all, or stop completely.

Yep, that's what I mean...it should be a civil agreement with equal protection regardless of gender and should be treated like any other contract between parties. Leave all of the ceremonial stuff to non state institutions.

"Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men"....Demosthenes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 03/20/12 8:31pm

cborgman

avatar

babynoz said:

cborgman said:

nod

HOWEVER; gov't needs to get in or get or instead of performing halfway. either make all civil "marriages" "civil unions" to please the bigots, point out that civil marriage is it's ownj institution, or get out completely. providing tax breaks and legal protections for hetero (but not homo) relationships is unconstitutional and illegal.

either declare civil marriage as marriage for all, make civil marriage into "civil unions" for all, or stop completely.

Yep, that's what I mean...it should be a civil agreement with equal protection regardless of gender and should be treated like any other contract between parties. Leave all of the ceremonial stuff to non state institutions.

nod

agree: civil unions for all then.

problem becomes the bigots dont want to change to civil unions for all because they dont think gay people deserve the same rights regardless of what it is called, AND they idiotically see civil unions instead of civil marriage as a downstep for their relationships.

so what now?

[Edited 3/20/12 20:31pm]

"I am almost never wrong"
"it is hard being the smartest person in the room but it is a cross i am willing to bare."


-OnlyNDaUsa
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 03/20/12 9:13pm

babynoz

avatar

cborgman said:

babynoz said:

Yep, that's what I mean...it should be a civil agreement with equal protection regardless of gender and should be treated like any other contract between parties. Leave all of the ceremonial stuff to non state institutions.

nod

agree: civil unions for all then.

problem becomes the bigots dont want to change to civil unions for all because they dont think gay people deserve the same rights regardless of what it is called, AND they idiotically see civil unions instead of civil marriage as a downstep for their relationships.

so what now?

[Edited 3/20/12 20:31pm]

As we have seen very recently, whether it's minorities, women, gays, etc., the struggle for civil rights and equality is always an ongoing thing so gird your loins bro cuz it's not the kind of struggle where one can ever say it's over and done with.

"Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men"....Demosthenes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 03/21/12 6:54am

Tremolina

Spinlight said:

Tremolina said:

All posts and opinions are wrong.

The only relevant legal question here is whether any LAW, state or federal, that sanctions gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

The US constitution doesn't say: Congres shall make no laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. Nor does it sanction it. It's simply silent on the issue because back then the idea alone of gay marriage didn't even exist.

Thus there is plenty of room and the same time no room for the SCOTUS to either block any such laws or let them pass. The right course would be to let it pass because it's out of their jurisdiction. But there is no guarantee, simply put because the SCOTUS is not a legal court of justice but a political one.

Time to put them to the test?

[Edited 3/20/12 12:27pm]

Is marriage a religious institution by your definition?

It is relevant to the argument being made by the conservative right. It's a religious institution and religion is defined as such: blah blah blah. If religion did not have the jurisdiction to claim what marriage is or isn't, this wouldn't be an argument one way or the other.

The OP's post makes sense despite any minor clerical errors in the way the courts handle themselves.

Marriage is a civil institution. By law it's a contract between two people defining much of their legal status in life. It's not relevant what the role of the Church (or any other religion) may or may not be in that marriage, because that is or at least should not be a requirement to marry before the law. Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 03/21/12 6:57am

Tremolina

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

All posts and opinions are wrong.

The only relevant legal question here is whether any LAW, state or federal, that sanctions gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

The US constitution doesn't say: Congres shall make no laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. Nor does it sanction it. It's simply silent on the issue because back then the idea alone of gay marriage didn't even exist.

Thus there is plenty of room and the same time no room for the SCOTUS to either block any such laws or let them pass. The right course would be to let it pass because it's out of their jurisdiction. But there is no guarantee, simply put because the SCOTUS is not a legal court of justice but a political one.

Time to put them to the test?

[Edited 3/20/12 12:27pm]

BS

(Here comes the Bush election case . . . . outlier.)

It is not a "court of justice" either. It playe toe role of an appellate court and acts as a court of original jurisdiction on a narrow range of cases.

You can present new evidence before the SCOTUS. SCOTUS may appear political by which cases they choose to hear but the obviously can't hear them all so they have to pick and choose. The majority of the time they get it right, but not always.

So your point is I was right. Thanks.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 03/21/12 2:15pm

Spinlight

avatar

Tremolina said:

Spinlight said:

Is marriage a religious institution by your definition?

It is relevant to the argument being made by the conservative right. It's a religious institution and religion is defined as such: blah blah blah. If religion did not have the jurisdiction to claim what marriage is or isn't, this wouldn't be an argument one way or the other.

The OP's post makes sense despite any minor clerical errors in the way the courts handle themselves.

Marriage is a civil institution. By law it's a contract between two people defining much of their legal status in life. It's not relevant what the role of the Church (or any other religion) may or may not be in that marriage, because that is or at least should not be a requirement to marry before the law. Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree with you, but that is why this is a topic of debate at all. But for the fact that religious people "claim" marriage as a religious institution, we wouldn't be arguing about it one way or the other as the government wouldn't have a faith-based response to who could or could not marry barring it wasn't exploiting the tax system.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 03/21/12 5:57pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Tremolina said:

SUPRMAN said:

BS

(Here comes the Bush election case . . . . outlier.)

It is not a "court of justice" either. It playe toe role of an appellate court and acts as a court of original jurisdiction on a narrow range of cases.

You can present new evidence before the SCOTUS. SCOTUS may appear political by which cases they choose to hear but the obviously can't hear them all so they have to pick and choose. The majority of the time they get it right, but not always.

So your point is I was right. Thanks.

Appearing political does not make it political.

I'm disagreeing, I just understand why you would say that.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 03/22/12 10:08am

Tremolina

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

So your point is I was right. Thanks.

Appearing political does not make it political.

I'm disagreeing, I just understand why you would say that.

I understand why you wold say that too. However, not only do they make politically based decisions on what cases to take and how they decide on those few cases they do take, they are also politically nominated and outspoken on their affiliation. It's a political court like no other in the world.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 03/22/12 11:39am

Tremolina

Spinlight said:

Tremolina said:

Marriage is a civil institution. By law it's a contract between two people defining much of their legal status in life. It's not relevant what the role of the Church (or any other religion) may or may not be in that marriage, because that is or at least should not be a requirement to marry before the law. Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

I agree with you, but that is why this is a topic of debate at all. But for the fact that religious people "claim" marriage as a religious institution, we wouldn't be arguing about it one way or the other as the government wouldn't have a faith-based response to who could or could not marry barring it wasn't exploiting the tax system.

So in other words I am saying that "marriage being a religious institution" shouldn't be an issue to "debate" at all when it comes to marriage before the law.

What religious institutions themselves can still do is bar gay people from marrying in their churches, mosques etc. But they can't bar those people from marrying before the law.

The only ones who can do that are politicians making laws barring homosexuals from marrying. Not the scotus because it is not, nor should it be in their jurisdiction.

To be clear: (I realized I may have been a bit too much devil's advocate there) That's not to say that the scotus couldn't, or wouldn't take any case regarding (gay) marriage, nor that I think they shouldn't. Personally I think they should actually strike down any case on any (religiously inspired) law explicitly bars homosexuals from marrying as being in conflict with the equal rights of all people.

[Edited 3/22/12 12:43pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 03/22/12 6:11pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

Tremolina said:

SUPRMAN said:

Appearing political does not make it political.

I'm disagreeing, I just understand why you would say that.

I understand why you wold say that too. However, not only do they make politically based decisions on what cases to take and how they decide on those few cases they do take, they are also politically nominated and outspoken on their affiliation. It's a political court like no other in the world.

That can be said about any case the court hears as someone has a stake in the outcome.

It takes four of the justices to agree to hear a case.

I don't think you can exclude the perception of politics as the justices don't live in a bubble but I think the Constitution carries more weight than who occupies the Oval Office.

Thankfully they don't need to worry about re-elections.

I don't like the idea of the court being perceived as being political but not interested in parsing cases to determine and define what is or isn't political.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 03/23/12 11:20am

Tremolina

SUPRMAN said:

Tremolina said:

I understand why you wold say that too. However, not only do they make politically based decisions on what cases to take and how they decide on those few cases they do take, they are also politically nominated and outspoken on their affiliation. It's a political court like no other in the world.

That can be said about any case the court hears as someone has a stake in the outcome.

It takes four of the justices to agree to hear a case.

I don't think you can exclude the perception of politics as the justices don't live in a bubble but I think the Constitution carries more weight than who occupies the Oval Office.

Thankfully they don't need to worry about re-elections.

I don't like the idea of the court being perceived as being political but not interested in parsing cases to determine and define what is or isn't political.

Yes, that much is clear. For the rest it's not as to why the scotus is not a political court.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Why banning Gay marriage IS unconstitutional