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...
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.
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.
“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.
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.
If this perversion is approved, there is little that won’t be allowed in the future.
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.
“This isnt really about gay marriage as much as its 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.
No pro-same-sex argument I can imagine would be exempt from use to justify polygamy.
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.
Certainly the court has no authority to declare the unnatural to be acceptable.
Unsafe and unnatural...there needs to be a word for that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.