Outstanding! It's now officially legal for Bruce to marry Bruce!

[Eagle Road]

I'm confused why Scalia's comments are counter to democracy?

Seems to me, in a democracy, he's saying the States should be allowed to decide based on a majority of their citizens, whether they want gay marriage or not.

Scalia seems to be saying that a majority of nine guys made that decision for everyone.

I'm not getting into whether gay marriage is a constitutional right or not, or whether State's have the constitutional right to decide for themselves what marriage will be under their state laws ... I'm just expressing confusion about how Scalia is ignoring the democratic nature of America when that quote appears to be saying he thinks the Supremes just did exactly that by imposing their majority over that in individual States.

Thanks Slag, exactly why I thought he would of said a Republic since in a Republic a representative (in this case SCJ) made the decision for the people.


Where as in a true Democracy it would be a direct populous vote, SC would never be involved, that is why I said it odd the way he stated his response.

[BigSlizz]

If anything, this shows that a Republican-leaning Supreme Court knows how to do it's job - not decide if something is right/wrong/moral/etc, but if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.

[slag]

Frankly

I'm with Robert Klein on this issue:

[CbEagle]

You hear all those popping sounds, thats teabaggers heads exploding all over this great country.

[RSE]

There are those constitutional scholars who will tell you that the ability of the Supreme Court to determine whether a law is constitutional is not constitutional.

[CCPete]

I'm confused why Scalia's comments are counter to democracy?

Seems to me, in a democracy, he's saying the States should be allowed to decide based on a majority of their citizens, whether they want gay marriage or not.

Scalia seems to be saying that a majority of nine guys made that decision for everyone.

I'm not getting into whether gay marriage is a constitutional right or not, or whether State's have the constitutional right to decide for themselves what marriage will be under their state laws ... I'm just expressing confusion about how Scalia is ignoring the democratic nature of America when that quote appears to be saying he thinks the Supremes just did exactly that by imposing their majority over that in individual States.

9 guys didn't make the decision for everyone. It was made in 1868 when the 14th amendment was signed which says in part:

No State would be allowed to abridge the privilidges of its citizens. No person is allowed to be deprived of liberty. No person can be denied equal protection.

States should not have the right to deny rights to people.

Scalia is a hateful disgusting person. His arguments are based on his biases. Not the constitution. Fortunately he and his ilk are becoming extinct.

[Maniac]

I'm just expressing confusion about how Scalia is ignoring the democratic nature of America when that quote appears to be saying he thinks the Supremes just did exactly that by imposing their majority over that in individual States.

Scalia always votes his politics and then crafts his rhetoric to match. He's contradicted himself many times. He's only for democracy when it suits his position.

Contrast conservatives Roberts and Kennedy who appear to occasionally put some thought into their decisions rather than always vote their politics.

[BigSlizz]

I understand that, but isn't that their job by definition?

Generally speaking, I feel as if people have been tricked by the news channels to believe that the Supreme Court exists to serve party agendas, but it seems like when they make decisions, they're pretty much by the book.

[Eagle Road]

9 guys didn't make the decision for everyone. It was made in 1868 when the 14th amendment was signed which says in part:

No State would be allowed to abridge the privilidges of its citizens. No person is allowed to be deprived of liberty. No person can be denied equal protection.

States should not have the right to deny rights to people.

Scalia is a hateful disgusting person. His arguments are based on his biases. Not the constitution. Fortunately he and his ilk are becoming extinct.

I took his comments as being afraid for the ability of the Republic (or Democracy if you will) to make it's own laws either by or for the people.


If the SC has to make law then you are heading for an Oligarchy, at least that is what I got out of his comments, and I agree with what he is saying in this context.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-court-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF?ocid=DELLDHP

[slag]

Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

[slag]

So you're agreeing that his comments were in favor of democracy ... good.

[RSE]

And where would that definition be? Hint it isn't in the Constitution.

[FuriousXGeorge]

And where would that definition be? Hint it isn't in the Constitution.

That ship sailed in 1803, it's essentially trivia at this point. The Supreme Court isn't going to reverse it and the amendment process is essentially dead because you can't get that level of agreement on anything in the modern US.

[RSE]

Doi. I'm just bear baiting Slizz.

[Bardy]

Who knew?

and