Skip to comments.Supreme Court showdown expected over gay rights decisions [Kennedy v Scalia?]
Posted on 12/09/2012 12:52:24 PM PST by WilliamIII
WASHINGTON For more than two decades, the defining battles within the Supreme Court over social and moral controversies have been fought between two devout Catholics appointed by President Reagan.
Justice Antonin Scalia believes the law can and should enforce moral standards, including criminal bans on abortion and on "homosexual conduct" that many "believe to be immoral and destructive."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a libertarian conservative who believes the Constitution protects the freedom of individuals to "make personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education."
Now the ideological fight between the conservative giants is set for another round. The two 76-year-olds are to some extent likely to be on opposite sides when the court meets in the spring to decide whether the government can refuse marriage and federal benefits to gays and lesbians.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Just another opportunity for SCOTUS to stick a knife in the back of decent Americans. We might as well get used to it.
Kennedy horribly socially liberal. We know where this is headed.
But we don't know that that extends as far as marriage. We'll see.
You’re right. Add his vote to the four DemonRats’ votes and it’s all over but the shouting.
If it’s Scalia vs. Kennedy then it’s over, right? Four lib’s plus Kennedy.
I stopped reading at that point. Anyone that thinks Kennedy is anything but a left tilted moderate has nothing intelligent to say.
If you can't adjust to NORMAL lifestyle, don't expect the benefits that are bestowed on those who actually produce value, traditional families, and a sense of right and wrong with common sense and moral compasses.
Deviates have no "Standing"; i.e., they engage in sexual conduct of their liking, and expect civilized society to recognize its legitamacy somehow.
It's goal is destruction of the Nuclear Family, Christian Principles, and any responsible thought is forbidden.
Its not as if the Framers designed Scotus to be supreme among the branches; Congress has allowed and encouraged it.
Kennedy's opinion left the laws against same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," Scalia said at the time. "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest'
what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?"
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 17 assured readers that the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the three branches.
It seemed more of an empty assurance at the time.
Those that sustain a society are denied the protection of that society in favor of those that don't, and they return the sentiment.
Exactly. And to think we could and should have had Robert Bork instead of this loser. >:(
He has the option to be seen by liberal historians as the man who wrote the majority opinion striking down gay marriage laws.
He can uphold Pro Family anti gay marriage laws until the next case comes before the SCOTUS when Obama will have two or three appointments to the Court.
The most scary aspect is that by January 20, 2017 the SCOTUS could have five of its nine justices appointed by Barack Obama.
What is the quote from #17?
This isn’t really about gay marriage as much as it’s about whether voters can vote a particular definition of marriage and then have it overturned by a court.
Isn’t that the case they took up?
Seems to me that there are plenty of gay marriage votes in other states that Kennedy has not seen fit to challenge, so it really isn’t about whether those are constitutional.
Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people? Am I wrong on this....that this is not that case?
When courts substitute their social constructs for those passed by the people via their reps, the courts strike at the very foundation of our revolution and fifty republics. Meaning, no law can be legitimate without our consent. No d@mn court has proper power to impose that which 5,000 years of western civilization has regarded as perverse.
I’m a researcher and I’ve been flubbing numbers lately. Gonna have to recheck all the calculations from the last couple weeks!
Make that Federalist #78.
...The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments...