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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court showdown expected over gay rights decisions [Kennedy v Scalia?]
Los Angeles Times ^ | Dec 8 2012 | David G. Savage

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: doma; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda

1 posted on 12/09/2012 12:52:28 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Just another opportunity for SCOTUS to stick a knife in the back of decent Americans. We might as well get used to it.


2 posted on 12/09/2012 12:56:42 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (I feel sad for my once great country. We deserve everything that is about to happen to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Kennedy horribly socially liberal. We know where this is headed.


3 posted on 12/09/2012 12:59:21 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
We know Kennedy stands up for some gay rights.

But we don't know that that extends as far as marriage. We'll see.

4 posted on 12/09/2012 1:00:33 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

You’re right. Add his vote to the four DemonRats’ votes and it’s all over but the shouting.


5 posted on 12/09/2012 1:01:00 PM PST by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

If it’s Scalia vs. Kennedy then it’s over, right? Four lib’s plus Kennedy.


6 posted on 12/09/2012 1:02:00 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
“Now the ideological fight between the conservative giants..”

I stopped reading at that point. Anyone that thinks Kennedy is anything but a left tilted moderate has nothing intelligent to say.

7 posted on 12/09/2012 1:02:37 PM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
An opportunity to set Case Law interpreting that the Constitution was to LIMIT FEDERAL POWER, left everything they currently shove up our asses to the States, and here can be one of those Cases that allow for a STATEMENT establishing that this Country was founded on Judeo-Christian Moral Principles. This is NOT intended (The Constition) to LIMIT private conduct, but when Public Benefits are to be bestowed on "Alternative Lifestyles" (aka; Sex Deviates), we need to wipe out this abysmal assault on the Founding Fathers' intent.

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.

8 posted on 12/09/2012 1:03:26 PM PST by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Didn't Kennedy, in Lawrence v. Texas, explicitly include in his opinion that striking down anti-sodomy laws would not in any way entitle homosexuals to the rights of marriage?
9 posted on 12/09/2012 1:04:11 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Congress could have passed DOMA with a provision that removed it from court review. Article III, “with such exceptions . . . as Congress shall make.”

Its not as if the Framers designed Scotus to be supreme among the branches; Congress has allowed and encouraged it.

10 posted on 12/09/2012 1:07:29 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
It would be interesting if you could come up with that part of Kennedy's opinion. Here's what Scalia said according to this article:

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?"

11 posted on 12/09/2012 1:10:19 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 17 assured readers that the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the three branches.


12 posted on 12/09/2012 1:12:35 PM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: what's up
I'll post it when I find it.

It seemed more of an empty assurance at the time.

13 posted on 12/09/2012 1:17:21 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
One of the reasons that societies fall is that they convince the normal productive members to no longer support and protect the society as whole by granting special status and protection to members that do not contribute sustainability to that society.

Those that sustain a society are denied the protection of that society in favor of those that don't, and they return the sentiment.

14 posted on 12/09/2012 1:17:38 PM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Exactly. And to think we could and should have had Robert Bork instead of this loser. >:(


15 posted on 12/09/2012 1:17:47 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
In the spring of 2013 Kennedy will be focused on his legacy and his place in American history.

He has the option to be seen by liberal historians as the man who wrote the majority opinion striking down gay marriage laws.

or

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.

16 posted on 12/09/2012 1:30:38 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 17 assured readers that the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the three branches.

What is the quote from #17?

17 posted on 12/09/2012 1:44:08 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII; P-Marlowe; Girlene; Forest Keeper

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?


18 posted on 12/09/2012 1:47:42 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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.

Correctamundo!

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.

19 posted on 12/09/2012 1:57:31 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Doh!

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.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm

...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...


20 posted on 12/09/2012 1:59:42 PM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Kennedy is not a libertarian. He’s a raving liberal.

Libertarians are passive on a lot of things, but he generally attempts not to permit but to enforce the liberal social agenda. He’s more conservative economically.


21 posted on 12/09/2012 2:02:01 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
Roger that.

Insofar as courts have usurped the powers of Congress and the States, it is not what the Framers designed. They did not corrupt the Constitution.

They gave us the power of impeachment, the exceptions and regulations clause, and just as important, every inferior federal court exists at the pleasure of Congress. IIRC, Rep Pete King said Congress could reduce the entire federal court system to John Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle.

In short, there should be at least a couple judicial scalps from impeachment hanging on Congressional belts every year. Impeachment and conviction just means a firing. What is the big deal? Is there a lawyer shortage? Impeach a couple judges per year and the rest will get the message.

The problem is Congress kinda likes the courts and administrative agencies making the tough decisions. It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics that when the heat is on courts or regulatory agencies, it is not on Congress. We the Sheeple at large are too ignorant to figure this out.

22 posted on 12/09/2012 2:15:18 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people?”

Yes, a court could overturn the vote of the people of Washington State and Maryland to grant same sex marriage rights to gays.

And, if the voters of Vermont elected to force everyone in the state to become a vegetarian and ban the sale and consumption of meat, a court could overturn that decision of the voters.


23 posted on 12/09/2012 2:20:42 PM PST by OKRA2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

You’ve got it exactly.

The Constitution purposely leaves grounds for impeachment of judges vague and does not preclude solely political reasons.

And the House of Representatives should employ the power of the purse - the only power they have. Until they do, castrati like Boehner are logical choices.


24 posted on 12/09/2012 2:25:33 PM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

If this perversion is approved, there is little that won’t be allowed in the future.


25 posted on 12/09/2012 2:35:03 PM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

If anyone thinks that the court will not rule that all gay marriages are all right is crazy. Why would they rule that society has a right to restrict this? They will never let the public decide for itself what society’s standards are to be. There are no more standards. This court will make it clear that the battle is over.


26 posted on 12/09/2012 2:39:52 PM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“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.”

Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our bosses in black robes deem to uphold it, I bet they just try to repeal it with another popular vote. I have my doubts that prop. 8 would pass today in Ca.

Freegards


27 posted on 12/09/2012 2:50:16 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

No pro-same-sex argument I can imagine would be exempt from use to justify polygamy.


28 posted on 12/09/2012 4:36:16 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

But there have been dozens of other states to pass same-sex marriage prohibitions and have their decision enter into law. How can what is untouched by judges — supposedly just fine — suddenly be found to be wrong.


29 posted on 12/09/2012 5:46:54 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Certainly the court has no authority to declare the unnatural to be acceptable.

Unsafe and unnatural...there needs to be a word for that.


30 posted on 12/09/2012 5:59:25 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It was always a danger. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority thinks it can be at any one time. And that’s it. A poll last year said that 40% of people think that marriage comes from the state.

Freegards


31 posted on 12/09/2012 6:16:45 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012
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.

Anti-gay? I think you have been drinking the koolaid. There are no 'gay' beings being discriminated against. There are disordered self destructive individuals who choose to engage in intrinsically disordered sexual activity that not only is of no benefit to society but in fact poses a threat to society.

Just discrimination is in order on this and any other socially self destructive behavior. Giving these self destructive idiots benefits and privilege for destroying themselves and society is an absurd proposition that could only seem rational in a leftist mind -a mind devoid of rational thought.

32 posted on 12/09/2012 6:44:27 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people?

It happens in California all the time. When the voters pass a proposition that some affected group doesn't like (i.e. hispanics and Proposition 187), they'll go find some friendly judge and file a lawsuit and it will be overturned. That's what happened with Proposition 8. The California voters said no to gay marriage ... and here we are.

33 posted on 12/09/2012 6:57:44 PM PST by Fast Moving Angel (A moral wrong is not a civil right: No religious sanction of an irreligious act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins
But there have been dozens of other states to pass same-sex marriage prohibitions and have their decision enter into law. How can what is untouched by judges — supposedly just fine — suddenly be found to be wrong.

Unlike what the leftist media is claiming -Prop 8 is different -unique, in that the federal judge overturned that law by claiming there was no rational basis for it. In essence, the judge claimed voters of religious faith voted based upon religious conviction and that this premise for denying homosexual sex practitioners the benefits of marriage was irrational and not allowed as premise for such public discourse.

THAT is why the Supremes have taken it -because primarily the state has trampled upon the inalienable individual right of religious freedom and secondarily the judge did not rule on the merits of the vote results but rather erroneously upon the eligibility of what premises a legitimate individual vote. The judge effectively denied the votes of those who voted for the 'wrong' reasons.

34 posted on 12/09/2012 7:00:25 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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?


You raise an interesting issue.

I wonder if the Supremes didn't take this one because of the history of gay marriage in California.

It was legalized in certain municipalities before later being outlawed by Prop 8. This created a peculiar situation where gay couples already married were allowed to stay married but new ones couldn't get married, and if those existing couples divorced the people couldn't enter into a new marriage.

I suspect that the Court might decide that a popular vote can't revoke a right already recognized without ruling on the larger issue. That would likely overturn Prop 8 but limit it's effect to California alone.
35 posted on 12/09/2012 8:42:15 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall

well, Roberts is gay, so I very much doubt he will go with the conservative....that is, unless Kennedy is still ticked off about the health care case, and decides to out Roberts by forcing him to vote with the liberals to save gay marriage. He may even force him to change his vote at the last second, as happened in the health care case....perhaps to push forward the nature of the extortion that got the obama administration their 5th vote.

Either way, there is zero chance that the court will not soon legalize gay marriage.

Gay marriage is soon to be “the law of the land”.


36 posted on 12/10/2012 12:48:56 PM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
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.

In which case, it's all over but the crying. Kennedy will join with the liberal whackjobs and that will be 5 votes. Or 6, maybe, depending on if Roberts has a fight with his boyfriend or whatever.

37 posted on 12/10/2012 12:54:51 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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