Posted on 02/17/2014 2:16:32 PM PST by madprof98
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Supreme Court is likely to rule as soon as 2015 on whether there is now a fundamental right to gay marriage:
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver will go first, with oral arguments scheduled for April on the cases from Oklahoma and Utah. The Virginia ruling will go to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and the Kentucky case will go to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has a pending appeal from Nevada but has not scheduled arguments.Once an appeals court hands down a decision, the losing side will have 90 days to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. As a result, a ruling that comes this summer could easily reach the justices in time for a decision in 2015.
Meanwhile here are the states facing gay-marriage decisions in 2014:
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Consider that the states never ratified an amendment for the regulation of drugs as we have with the War on Drugs like they had to do with alcohol. Instead they rely on precedent
(*spit*) of things like Wickard and Raich — it is in the supporting of the War on Drugs that we have the acceptance of the NSA's domestic spying [legally speaking] and the erosion of many other legal rights. (According to my count the War on Drugs has had deleterious effects on six or seven of the Bill of Rights's Amendments.)
In short, the Supreme Court is not above issuing rulings supporting "current practices" even if they are in direct conflict with the Constitution.
That is a bad idea.
You see, passing a marriage amendment cedes all power over it to the legal realm — as it is the surrendering [or usurpation] of the right for churches to say what is and isn't marriage wholly to the realm of law.
With this ceding of the ability to define "marriage", all that those that want to force "same sex marriage" would have to do is pass another amendment defining marriage however they want… and remember that the children are put into indoctrination-centers for more than a decade, do you want to gamble that they don't exert significant influence therein?
IMO it would be much better to assert that marriage is a religious rite not [strictly-speaking] a civil/legal matter.
The idea that we were somehow going to be allowed to define marriage on a state-by-state basis with so many companies that have offices in many different states was a dream.
Companies want to move their employees around. Employees want to move in order to get promotions and raises, or just to keep their job. Companies have health plans that are complicated enough to maintain with each state's unique insurance laws. Put on top of that whether or not a couple is counted as a married couple and things get really complicated.
So corporations were always going to push for liberalization of marriage laws in all states. And those of us on FR who were adamantly opposed to McCain-Feingold now see how our Constitutional views have allowed big business to pump millions of dollars into congress to get them to do their bidding.
The Republicans are salivating at normalizing insurance laws throughout the US and doing for the insurance industry what they did for banking. To put a cherry on top and let whomever marry whomever would just be fantastic for the their corporate friends.
Just in time for Roberts to introduce us to his boyfriend.
The USSC will have to decide:
Is a desired recreational sex act an immutable trait.
Are homosexuals born to recreation that way.
The USSC will have to create a “love test” for marriage. If you “love” something, someone, some-it is that all needed? (can an egomaniac marry their own reflection? see obama)
the propaganda is not that of “pairing” but the feeeeeeling of “love”.
the left is applying an absurd love test where no love test ever existed.
The fact that Wickard v. Raich was decided after Wickard v. Filburn makes it suspicious.
In fact, since were're taking about precedent concerning the Commerce Clause, please consider the following. Regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Wickard, the justices seem to have "overlooked" that the Court had historically clarifed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress no power regulate intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The reason that activist justices get away with amending the Constitution from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents for many generations have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. Consequently, voters are oblivious when activist justices unconstitutionally expand Congress's powers.
Oh, I quite agree — it's obviously in the federal government's interest to, via federal education mandates, make everyone believe that there are fewer and fewer restrictions on them.
judges must pass a “liberal enough” litmus test for the DC crowd. Most are career federal prosecutors with no clue about the real world or even the meaning of law or legal principle. For them law is a video game akin to angry birds.
Just wait until the penalties for losing a level involve hot tar and feathers… or rope-dances.
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.