[tomder55]

I shoul add something about my previous answer: the court specifically left in place a part of DOMA that allows a state to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. This is why a legally married gay couple can't file a joint state income tax return in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages.

Yes ,and that is part of the reason I think the next Federal Court battles on this issue will be based on the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause ' (which Congress tries to bypass in Sec 2 of DOMA). Well that ,and Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion that anyone who opposes same sex marriage is a bigot animated by a passion to demean and denigrate.(that includes evidently the 85 bipartisan majority of Senators who voted for DOMA and the President (Clintoon ) who signed it into law

Oh yeah ,let's not forget that according to the Prop 8 decision, only State executives have standing to defend state laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage ;even if they refuse to do so.

[earl237]

I think the court rulings on same sex marriage were right. What will happen in the states where gay marriage is still illegal? I don't think that redneck states in the South and Utah will ever legalize it until the court strikes down all anti gay marriage laws just like the Lawrence vs Texas ruling that struck down anti sodomy laws. This ruling was a step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.

[tomder55]

To sum up... 4 decision ;each side of the political divide happy with 2 each . We are left as spectators cheering or booing accordingly as SCOTUS makes dictatorial decisions they have no business making . Scalia's dissent in the DOMA decision could just as easily been made in in dissent of the Racial preferences and Voting Rights cases.

[ebaines]

To sum up ... 4 decision ;each side of the political divide happy with 2 each . We are left as spectators cheering or booing accordingly as SCOTUS makes dictatorial decisions they have no business making.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm an oddball, but I'm actually OK with all 4 decisions. In two of them they basically punted - deciding not to decide on the CA gay marriage issue and leaving in tact the lower court's ruling on affirmative action in college admissions - hardly dictatorial. The other two were about federal laws (voting rights act and DoMA), and so absolutely appropriate to be ruled on by the supremes. I thought killing DoMA would be a no brainer, and I actually thought would get struck down with better than a 5-4 majority. As for the voting rights act - I understand Ruth Bader Ginsburg's characterization in her dissent that getting rid of the 1965 rules which applied to only some states is like getting rid of your umbrella in a rain storm because you're dry, but I don't understand how the rules could legally continue to apply to some areas of the country but not others. Congress should have cleaned the law up years ago, and their inaction is the main reason it was overturned.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Help me out here.. I've heard you rail about SCOTUS and your belief that they DON'T have the power to rule on the Constitutionally of our laws... But, if THEY didn't, who would? And, if NOBODY would, who would STOP congress from passing UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws?

excon

[tomder55]

Hmmm. Maybe I'm an oddball, but I'm actually OK with all 4 decisions. In two of them they basically punted - deciding not to decide on the CA gay marriage issue and leaving in tact the lower court's ruling on affirmative action in college admissions - hardly dictatorial. The other two were about federal laws (voting rights act and DoMA), and so absolutely appropriate to be ruled on by the supremes. I thought killing DoMA would be a no brainer, and I actually thought would get struck down with better than a 5-4 majority. As for the voting rights act - I understand Ruth Bader Ginsburg's characterization in her dissent that getting rid of the 1965 rules which applied to only some states is like getting rid of your umbrella in a rain storm because you're dry, but I don't understand how the rules could legally continue to apply to some areas of the country but not others. Congress should have cleaned the law up years ago, and their inaction is the main reason it was overturned.

My point wasn't about if you agree or disagree .I have my opinion on the merits of all the decisions . Ex understands that my complaint is about the role of SCOTUS . Speech linked to Scalia's dissent in comment 59 ;and I spoke briefly about the same issue when I posted Jefferson's reaction to 'Marbury v Madison' in comment 54 and 58 .

But I'll repeat his comment here :

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis

Ex ;to answer your question ;SCOTUS is no more qualified than you or I to determine what is constitutional . The founders placed there biggest trust in the people ;and placed the most power of government to the elected branches . By having a lifetime unaccountable final arbiter to decide which laws are valid is to reduce our government to the equivalent of a constitutional monarchy.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

The founders placed there biggest trust in the people

So, the people COULD vote away the 2nd Amendment?? South Carolina COULD vote in slavery?

Excon

[tomder55]

But it's OK with you when SCOTUS can make those same decisions ? I will remind you that some of their decisions have been quite brutal ,oppressive , wrong and unconstitutional . The only difference is that their decisions stand ;no recourse except the cumbersome process of amendment .

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. Jefferson to Judge William Johnson,

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

But it's OK with you when SCOTUS can make those same decisions ?

At least they're interpreting a document, even if they do it wrongly on occasion, instead of passing laws based on ideology, hate or recrimination.

Excon

[tomder55]

You think there's no political consideration in their decisions ? Then why are they so often divided along ideological lines ? You would think that if it was just a matter of "interpretation " that ideology would play no factor.
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.
Jefferson to Judge Spencer Roane

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

you think there's no political consideration in their decisions ?

There is today. But, it wasn't always so. If we're lucky, those days will return.

How do you explain Brown v Board of Education? They weren't ALL liberal.

Excon

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

There is today. But, it wasn't always so. If we're lucky, those days will return.

How do you explain Brown v Board of Education? They weren't ALL liberal.

excon

When wasn't it always so ? 'Brown v Board of Ed ' reversed a horrible SCOTUS decision that became the legitimate law of the land for almost 60 years .
SCOTUS had previously decided that "separate but equal" was constitutional in Plessy Then, without any change in the constitution, they decided that it was unconstitutional.

How is something both constitutional and unconstitutional under the same constitution? Nothing changed ;both cases were identical . And yet 60 years later ;different justices being influenced by the politics of their times came up with completely different results .

So what happens in the future when another set of judges decides that " separate but equal" is cool again ? Won't matter too much how many progressive laws are in place then . It will be the decision of a very slim majority of justices that will make that decision .

[speechlesstx]

Well, one particular segment is happy with SCOTUS...

Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings

[tomder55]

When asked about polygamy the emperor said "my position is evolving " .

[talaniman]

We are all evolving, some faster than others.

[speechlesstx]

We are all evolving, some faster than others.

So you're for equal protection for polygamist marriages?

[NeedKarma]

So you're for equal protection for polygamist marriages?

Sure, why not?

[excon]

Hello again,

Do I have to get gay married now?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Sure, why not?

I thought there was no such slippery slope.

[paraclete]

Do you think it is possible this subject has become ad nausium, the institution of marriage has been dragged through the dust and we can expect any number of fringe applications for marriage. I won't give them credence by enumerating them.

However I expect an application from Ex to marry his big green plant