Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/30/2012 7:49:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

The Supreme Court got obamacare wrong.

Therefore, the Supreme Court is, we’ll, moot.

I don’t care how these constitutionally challenged idiots rule on anything. (With apology to the minority who understands the constitution)


2 posted on 11/30/2012 8:03:53 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

>> three separate laws denying recognition to same-sex couples.

Homosexual couples benefiting from govt policy is no more legit than straight friends doing the same thing. Whatever law is passed to benefit homosexuals should also benefit any party of two or more citizens regardless of the genital configuration.

The govt decided to get in bed with the family. What right does it have to manipulate it?


4 posted on 11/30/2012 8:06:28 PM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Unfortunately, I think the odds are against conservatives and sane Constitutional jurisprudence. Before the last Sup Court term it was thought that Anthony Kennedy would decide whether or not the Sup Court imposes recognition of gay unions on the entire nation. But after the Obamacare and Arizona immigration cases, now we have to worry about John Roberts too.

Since there is no chance at all of one of the four liberals getting this one right, then it means we’d have to get both Roberts and Kennedy, and I just don’t think that is likely.

I predict either Roberts or Kennedy will side with the liberals, and then the other will too in order to lend the decision more (phony) credibility. So I say it will be a 6-3 decision striking down every traditional marriage law and amendment in the nation, and imposing in their place state recognition of same-sex unions.

Scalia will write a brilliant, devastating dissent, but it won’t matter. Like Roe, the decision will never be overturned. Pathetic attempts to pass a Constitutional Amendment will fail miserably. Congress and the President (obviously if it’s Obama or another Democrat) will do nothing but meekly or gleefully obey and enforce the decision. Every state will also meekly obey and enforce the decision. And the Left will have achieved yet another gigantic Culture War victory in the court room.


6 posted on 11/30/2012 8:38:26 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Action was taken on the cases on Friday. Announcements about all the cases considered on Friday will be made on Monday.


21 posted on 12/01/2012 3:34:39 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

I feel sorry for Scalia and Thomas - it must hurt to be surrounded by so many inferior minds.


22 posted on 12/01/2012 4:59:31 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Heterosexual couples could maintain such benefits by getting married, an option unavailable to gay couples who may not wed in Arizona.

That is untrue.

Anyone in Arizona who is of age may marry.

24 posted on 12/01/2012 5:05:56 AM PST by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind; All
Separately, the Supreme Court has been weighing whether to review California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 voter initiative limiting marriage to a man and a woman. A federal appeals court in San Francisco found the measure unconstitutionally withdrew marriage rights from gays after the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that those rights were protected by the state constitution.

It's interesting the WSJ chooses to use this phrasing since Prop 8 was a state constitutional amendment in response to the the state court ruling about a prior lesser initiative, Prop 22. They distort the facts and timeline in a way that favors "gay marriage" advocates.

I have a fresh thought that gov't recognized "marriage" is not a right but a privilege akin to a driver's license. It's all about inheritance and co-mingling of property. If it were a true right the rules and eligibility would not be so varied and arbitrary. There would not be some community property states and some not nor would there be such disparity in age requirements, blood tests and so forth. The very lack of uniformity speaks to the power each state asserts in this area on who and what rights and responsibilities "marriage" confers.

27 posted on 12/01/2012 6:26:27 AM PST by newzjunkey (grr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

People can’t marry their parents or siblings either. Now we have male on male butt lickers replacing the old white trash with the completely mentally deranged homos.


30 posted on 12/01/2012 9:38:23 AM PST by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

37 posted on 12/01/2012 8:13:02 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson