Justice Scalia leaves opening

[RW]

Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?

Does it or not?

Yes it does but in specific ways. Things like marriage as a civil right is a political interpretation of the 14th Amend.



The 14th Amend ratified in 1868 deals primarily with citizenship rights including that of freed slaves. Over the years the SCOTUS has taken it upon themselves to expand the Amendment to suit political purposes.

So it deals with limited areas of Liberty and equality?  You sure about that?

[RW]

Claiming "homophobia" is a PC silencing tactic Romero.  Tsk tsk.

I'm not claiming, and I'm not trying to silence her. The only thing that has ever shut Renee up on this forum is her own inability to control her freak outs.

Stop being a PC asshole and keep making valid points rather than degrading into this shit.  It makes you look like you're losing and on this one I don't think you are...yet.

[Romero]

Claiming "homophobia" is a PC silencing tactic Romero.  Tsk tsk.

I'm not claiming, and I'm not trying to silence her. The only thing that has ever shut Renee up on this forum is her own inability to control her freak outs.

Stop being a PC asshole and keep making valid points rather than degrading into this shit.  It makes you look like you're losing and on this one I don't think you are...yet.

You shut the fuck up. If you don't like it, don't read it. I'm not here for your sensitivity training. I'll say whatever I want, bitch.



ac_smile

[Renee]

Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?

Does it or not?

Yes it does but in specific ways. Things like marriage as a civil right is a political interpretation of the 14th Amend.



The 14th Amend ratified in 1868 deals primarily with citizenship rights including that of freed slaves. Over the years the SCOTUS has taken it upon themselves to expand the Amendment to suit political purposes.

So it deals with limited areas of Liberty and equality?  You sure about that?

No, the 14th Amend. deals specifically with liberty and equality as it pertains to citizenship. Marriage rights are an interpretation of the 14th and an extension of the "Bill of Rights".



The right to marriage as a qualifier for equal protection under the law, based on sex, is not specifically addressed. It is an implied right open to interpretation.

[RW]

That's how law works though - it evolves as the need arises because society evolves.  To say that the terms of Liberty and equality are wrongfully inclusive is a straw man arguement.

[Renee]

That's how law works though - it evolves as the need arises because society evolves.  To say that the terms of Liberty and equality are wrongfully inclusive is a straw man arguement.

In its truest form Constitutional law is not supposed to work that way. It's either constitutional or its not.



Opening it to interpretation to suit a perticular segment of society is political pandering and opens the gate for ideological bias.



Most constitutional law scholars agree that the same sex ruling was uncharted waters and it ended up as a ruling based almost solely on opinion and ideology. Any constitutional aspect came secondary.

[RW]

Most?  



Our "constitution" works a lot differently in that it only opposes limits to liberty, equality, etc as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society which makes same sex marriage very much a constitutional issue.  



I don't see gay marriage as an ideology but an issue of equality.  I don't give a fuck what reason you supply for why humans marry.  A restriction on legally recognized pair bonding, which comes with legally afforded rights, is NOT a justifiable restriction to freedom.

[Bricktop]

 

Wrong again shithead, our judges are nominated on the basis of ideology. They are then vetted and approved on the basis of their legal qualifications and their historical  conduct as it pertains to the law.



Have the intellectual courtesy of getting it right for a change.

Girl, I suggest you seek the services of a surgeon, and get that massive chip removed from your shoulder. Then you may be able to discuss, rather than disparage on the basis of the impulse to just be contrary for its own sake. And when we peel away the vitriol and virulence, we're left with...not much at all really.



If you would be so kind as to address the point, rather than your everyman's knowledge of your legal system, perhaps we may arrive at a point where you might either admit support for this perversion, or agree that appointing judiciary along ideological grounds rather than their record on jurisprudence is farcical.



On the other hand, by all means maintain your pathetic rage in lieu of reasoned argument and maintain the general perception that American's are incapable of intellectual engagement, and would rather kill or abuse what they don't understand.



Just a tip; abusing and insulting me is utterly impotent, and rather demonstrates that the less you know, the more churlish you become.

[cc]

You keep  misquoting and / or  repeating the same old

You originally claimed that "it's been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year".

Yes. Exactly as I have said several times  .. still do ... and your point is?


 

Since when is something that hasn't happened "standard practice"?  

Since when can choosing to not do something for 80 years  not be "standard practice"?  .. especially when it is .

Exactly as I have said it is several times .. .. and your point is?

It's actual standard practice for the President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. It's actual standard practice for Congress to consider the nominee.

Exactly as I have said several times .. .. and your point is?

It's never been standard practice for the President to hold off and wait for the next President.

Exactly as I have said several times ..  ... in fact it is standard practice for the President to appoint .. and your point is?



I also said what you deliberately avoid and dance around  like it was the plague - "the senate does not have to approve in any set time frame and in fact has not done so for a nominee of the last yr of a presidency in 80 yrs"



Clearly you don't like the facts as they are and are trying to slither around them with some repetitive silly game ...  but the facts are as they are

[RW]

Just because it has t been done doesn't mean it can't, shouldn't or won't (no I didn't say that last one with a straight face.)

[cc]

of course, which is why I didn't say it won't



I was just stating the history as a quite likely avenue for the future, not predicting  the future

[RW]

of course, which is why I didn't say it won't



I was just stating the history, not predicting  the future

There's no way in hell the senate will put a nominee through.

[cc]

prolly so  ... but not a certainty till its actually over. The current GOP old school have done some things just as stupid / weak of late and so I never trust their protecting their voters / promised agenda when push comes to shove like their opponents always do



Many others feel likewise, hence the current 2 top runners raison d'être

[Bricktop]

You are still describing an utterly farcical circumstance.

[Anonymous]

The only person this should be of any interest to is Renee.