Justice Kennedy Retiring!

[txradioguy]

Thanks, @txradioguy

Perhaps, I butchered what I was trying to convey.

At 72 years of age, I personally recall the segregation of African-Americans.  In fact, my point is that back then they weren't addressed as such.

It was wrong.  it was cruel.  But 9 SCOTUS judges, a House and Senate allowed it....until 'one day'.

I chose race to illustrate my point..obviously poorly.  But, it could be women getting the vote, etc..

The sad thing is...in same areas of race we've come full circle back to separate but equal...and again it's the Democrats insisting that it be that way.

Only difference this time is that the African American community is fully behind the effort.

[Hoodat]

Equal protection, thanks to the wisdom of the SCOTUS, is alive and well.

Equal Protection?  Hardly.  We already had equal protection until 'preference was added to the equation.  Now, it comes down to one preference being given special treatment over another.  Just ask any polygamist about equal protection.  He keeps hearing the lie from people like you about equal protection while his preference continues to be denied.

Christians and their dogmas and prejudices aren't accorded any special status.  None. Zip. Nada.

Ah, so what we're really talking about here is your religious bigotry.

[Jazzhead]

Ah, so what we're really talking about here is your religious bigotry.

Not bigotry.  Separation of church and state.  Thank God for it.   

[Jazzhead]

Equal Protection?  Hardly.  We already had equal protection until 'preference was added to the equation.  Now, it comes down to one preference being given special treatment over another. 

Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.

The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.       

[txradioguy]

Not bigotry.  Separation of church and state.

There is nothing that prevents religion from being in the public square.

And you're loose and very Liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment is as shoddy as your interpretation of the 2nd and the 14th.

If it were up to you...nothing dealing with religion would ever be uttered outside the walls of a church.

[Hoodat]

Not bigotry.  Separation of church and state.

Then why bring up Christians?  I address the law, and you instead bring up Christians.  It is a pattern with you.  It's what bigots do.

Btw, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, just so you know.  Not that this has anything at all to do with the State of California being allowed to establish its own laws on marriage.

[Hoodat]

Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences. 

I demand no such thing.  I only ask that the Constitution be followed, and that California or Vermont be allowed to establish their own marriage laws.  Nothing religious about that.  So stop with your bigotry against Christians.  Religion has nothing to do with this.

The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.       

Show me anywhere on this board where I have insisted anyone is going to he'll, you < NOPE >.

[GrouchoTex]

Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.

The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.       

I have to laugh when I think about this.
I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.
They used the 14th amendment to allow gays to be married.
Because they weren't able to marry, they were protected from something others were not.
Divorce
Now, they get to go to court, hire lawyers, and get ugly in court, any pay a lot of money to hear exaggerated  claims of what kind of s.o.b. they are from the other party.
Be careful what you wish for.
But, hey, who am I to judge?
They will have equal protection, they will also have equal suffering.

Of course, I am just kidding, but I do find it humorous.

[Hoodat]

I have to laugh when I think about this.
I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.

Nor do I.  But I am in the fight when it comes to the tyranny of the courts usurping rights delegated to States.  I have no problem with Vermont legalizing same-sex marriage.  But I fully support their Constitutional right to do so.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I know you are referring to Kennedy's rulings regarding Americans who happen to be homosexual.  I disagree that he had anything at all in common, as a matter of judicial philosophy, with the Wise Latina.   As I see it, he had the wisdom to apply the Constitution's protections in the context of changed circumstances.   The Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection applies to us all.

Carving out a special protected class of citizens from the others is not equal protection.

It is the #1 reason that was a horrible ruling.

[GrouchoTex]

Nor do I.  But I am in the fight when it comes to the tyranny of the courts usurping rights delegated to States.  I have no problem with Vermont legalizing same-sex marriage.  But I fully support their Constitutional right to do so.

I understand.
I am a 10th over 14th guy, and I didn't think this quite passed the test that the 14th should trump the 10th.
Others disagree.
I do think there are some occasions where the 14th can overrule the 10th, (Jim Crow, for example) but not nearly as often as it has.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Short of an act of Congress, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits a State from formulating its own laws in regard to marriage, or for that matter, abortion.  Nothing.  Zip.  Nada.

As for Equal Protection, it died the moment that one class was given special status over another at the expense of other classes.  But then such are the pitfalls of judicial tyranny when the Constitution is ignored.

Exactly.  Point well taken.

[Jazzhead]

I have to laugh when I think about this.
I have no dog in the gay marriage fight.
They used the 14th amendment to allow gays to be married.
Because they weren't able to marry, they were protected from something others were not.
Divorce
Now, they get to go to court, hire lawyers, and get ugly in court, any pay a lot of money to hear exaggerated  claims of what kind of s.o.b. they are from the other party.
Be careful what you wish for.
But, hey, who am I to judge?
They will have equal protection, they will also have equal suffering.

Of course, I am just kidding, but I do find it humorous.

You're absolutely right.  With the benefits of marriage come responsibilities.   The civil contract of marriage is unique is that it can only be undone with the consent of a court, which is charged with protecting the less powerful member(s) of the marriage. 

The nature of the marriage commitment is precisely why I have long supported same sex marriage. During the seventies, gay bathhouseculture ran amok,  leaving thousands if not millions with an incurable, deadly disease.  Marriage encourages monogamy and responsibility,  and a number of my colleagues, neighbors and family members have taken the plunge.   They're the salt of the earth, and just like you and me. 

Damn right now that gays have the "equal protection" of marriage, they now have "equal suffering".   That's exactly as it should be.   

[Oceander]

Clarence Thomas has been a great justice.  I admire him so much. 

But, hey, there is a reason for stereotyping ...it's usually true. 

But it’s often enough wrong that it makes a very poor substitute for actual thought and consideration of each individual on the merits. 

[EasyAce]

Btw, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, just so you know.

The nearest the Constitution itself comes to addressing it, other than the First Amendment which enjoins against a state religion equal to its enjoinment against barring religious exercise, comes in Article VI, Section Three: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Emphasis mine.)

[Jazzhead]

I demand no such thing.  I only ask that the Constitution be followed, and that California or Vermont be allowed to establish their own marriage laws.  Nothing religious about that.  So stop with your bigotry against Christians.  Religion has nothing to do with this.

Of course prejudice against gays is rooted in religion.  You're right though, it isn't just Christians.   Muslim dogma is equally chilling.  And the fact is that many - perhaps even most - Christians have no hatred of gays, wish them the best, and will even bake them cakes.  That's the nature of Christ's message of love, humility and grace.   

California and Vermont can and do establish their own marriage laws.   Each state determines on its own the benefits, rights, protections and responsibilities of married couple.  What they cannot do, however, is extend valuable rights and protections to certain couples and not others.   To that extent, the 14th amendment trumps the 10th.  That's equal protection.     

[Jazzhead]

Btw, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, just so you know. 

Yes there is, just so you know. 

[Sanguine]

Yes there is, just so you know.

Really?  Exactly where is that?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm a bit confused here, @Jazzhead

The name on the Federalist society list that intrigues me is Amul Thapar, who joined the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 after having been nominated by President Trump.  He previously served on the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.   A South Asian-American conservative,  it would be fascinating to have his perspective on the Court. 

The other name I'd like to see nominated is Third Circuit justice Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania.  He was reportedly the runner-up to Gorsuch for the Scalia vacancy.

But then, you say this:

Absolutely not true.  That is stereotyping, pure and simple.   Trump's not going to nominate a identity-politics liberal.  He's going to nominate a judicial conservative.    Has Clarence Thomas' race affected his rulings?

If the argument is that race doesn't affect rulings, then why are you intrigued by how Amul Thapar's South Asian heritage would affect "his perspective" on the Court?  I mean, either it's inconsequential and shouldn't be considered, or it isn't inconsequential and should be considered.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I know you are referring to Kennedy's rulings regarding Americans who happen to be homosexual.  I disagree that he had anything at all in common, as a matter of judicial philosophy, with the Wise Latina.   As I see it, he had the wisdom to apply the Constitution's protections in the context of changed circumstances.   The Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection applies to us all.

My issue is not with the actual result that he reached.  I could see someone reaching that result through plain legal reasoning, though I disagree with it.  My issue is with his reasoning, which was clearly tainted by things that had nothing to do with law.  I mean, this is maudlin crap that doesn't belong anywhere in any court opinion, much less a Supreme Court opinion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.

That reads like a newspaper editorial trying to convince legislators to support gay marriage, not a legal opinion.  There are other examples in that opinion of that kind of...garbage.  The man should have stuck to the legal issue, not so clearly tipped his hand regarding his personal biases.

[txradioguy]

Christians who demand that gays' civil rights reflect their dogmas and prejudices are the ones demanding preferences.

That is as big of a bald faced lie as you've ever told on here.

The law's equal protection extends to all, even those you insist are going to hell.       

You keep demanding special extra constitutional "rights" for your favorite little special interest groups above and beyond everyone else. And then call us bigots when we call you on it.

[txradioguy]

Yes there is, just so you know.

No there is not.

[Jazzhead]

I'm a bit confused here, @Jazzhead

But then, you say this:

If the argument is that race doesn't affect rulings, then why are you intrigued by how Amul Thapar's South Asian heritage would affect "his perspective" on the Court?  I mean, either it's inconsequential and shouldn't be considered, or it isn't inconsequential and should be considered.

No, there's also "it isn't inconsequential and it shouldn't be considered".

I am operating from the premise that Judge Thapar is not an identity-politics liberal.  He is, rather, an Indian-American in the same sense that I'm a Swedish-American.  Emphasis on the American,  but like all Americans, a mutt.   I subscribe to the school that we're a melting pot, not a mosaic, and that our rights derive from our status as individuals, not as members of an identity group.   

That being said, it would be fascinating,  I think,  to see an Indian-American on the Court.   Because he is neither of the majority nor of a favored minority - rather, to the identity-politics crowd, he is a disfavored minority,  the members of which are prone to achievement, family cohesion and excellent test scores.   The kind of minority that puts the lie to the premises underlying the identity crowd - that minorities by definition are victimized by the white patriarchy.   

[Jazzhead]

No there is not.

Yes, there is.

[Hoodat]

I understand.
I am a 10th over 14th guy, and I didn't think this quite passed the test that the 14th should trump the 10th.

I am a Tenth AND a Fourteenth Amendment guy.  Obergefell violates both.