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

[FuriousXGeorge]

I imply that your statement is too broad because it indicates that there can be no limits a state can impose on the equal right to marriage.

You then insult my intelligence and later add Heller and the connected concept that although Heller held gun ownership is a fundamental right, the state can still impose gun control limits.

Which actually supports my position that your statement was too broad.

You are just so almost close to figuring it out, all by yourself! Maybe try reading the opinion? There might be something there to answer your question!

Which proves RSE's point about all them having politically driven positions.

I agree with that point.

[slag]

I read the decision you disrespectful self-righteous patronizing jerk.

You think your opinion has a corner on the correct interpretation of the law and that insults prove it?

EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake about your identity once ... not anymore.

[Dim Bulb]

without taking a stand on this issue

I read the decision you disrespectful self-righteous patronizing jerk.

You think your opinion has a corner on the correct interpretation of the law and that insults prove it?

EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake about your identity once ... not anymore.

and without calling names, I liked "braying jackass" much better than the lamer insults in this post.

[Dim Bulb]

Two Bad Consequences of this Decision

My take: It is what it is. RSE and others are right. Although they might try (and even think) that they keep their own beliefs out of it, all justices are guided by their inherent bias. Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bade Ginsburg, whoever.

Two consequences of this decision that have as yet gone unremarked:

1. The vilification of the SCOTUS as a "liberal legislature" that needs to be altered in some way. The right wing echo machine is going to have a field day with these attacks. Bad idea. You didn't like the decision so you want to change the court? Impeach the justices? Keep going down that road and you'll end up like Guatemala. Or you'll get another Timmy McVeigh who actually believes the vitriolic garbage. The epicenter of this court is largely centrist/conservative in their rulings. Do you really want nine Alitos or Scalias? Oy.

2. There is going to be an anti-abortion like backlash against this ruling. Governors in states like Texas are going to add "procedures" (waiting periods? watching videos of hetero sex?) to same sex marriage licenses, just to try to push back on the court. It is their right to do so. But these processes, like the ruling itself, are going to be nothing but politics, having very little to do with Bruce marrying Bruce.

[Drama Queen]

Because: "Although they might try ( and even think) that they keep their beliefs out of it, all justices are guided by their inherent bias."

Therefore: "You didn't like the decision so you want to change the court?"

[slag]

Hey I liked the decision ... it creates a shitload of potential business for matrimonial lawyers.

[Dim Bulb]

The only reason to be a family lawyer

Hey I liked the decision ... it creates a shitload of potential business for matrimonial lawyers.

is most certainly rebound sex.

[slag]

On the other hand

As Joan Rivers said, the argument against same-sex marriage is that it generates a significant expense in wedding gifts.

[Overbrook]

The Washington Post had opinions from most of the Supremes.

My take: It is what it is. RSE and others are right. Although they might try (and even think) that they keep their own beliefs out of it, all justices are guided by their inherent bias. Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bade Ginsburg, whoever.

Two consequences of this decision that have as yet gone unremarked:

1. The vilification of the SCOTUS as a "liberal legislature" that needs to be altered in some way. The right wing echo machine is going to have a field day with these attacks. Bad idea. You didn't like the decision so you want to change the court? Impeach the justices? Keep going down that road and you'll end up like Guatemala. Or you'll get another Timmy McVeigh who actually believes the vitriolic garbage. The epicenter of this court is largely centrist/conservative in their rulings. Do you really want nine Alitos or Scalias? Oy.

2. There is going to be an anti-abortion like backlash against this ruling. Governors in states like Texas are going to add "procedures" (waiting periods? watching videos of hetero sex?) to same sex marriage licenses, just to try to push back on the court. It is their right to do so. But these processes, like the ruling itself, are going to be nothing but politics, having very little to do with Bruce marrying Bruce.

Now Scalia comes off as exactly as expected, some arrogant prick espousing his fine Catholic upbringing. He also takes the stand in personally attacking the judges who voted "for", in particular Kennedy; once again underlining what a complete prick he is. We're going against "his ruler"?

And now it's evident why Judge Slappy never asks questions or says anything. He's a fucking moron! To paraphrase, "denying gays the right to marry does not in any way affect their dignity. When the court held it legal to own slaves, African Americans still had their dignity, as did those who were placed in internment camps by the government." Slappy proves the adage about better better to be silent and thought a fool than to say something and confirm it.

[Dim Bulb]

yeah those dissents were a bit screechy

Now Scalia comes off as exactly as expected, some arrogant prick espousing his fine Catholic upbringing. He also takes the stand in personally attacking the judges who voted "for", in particular Kennedy; once again underlining what a complete prick he is. We're going against "his ruler"?

And now it's evident why Judge Slappy never asks questions or says anything. He's a fucking moron! To paraphrase, "denying gays the right to marry does not in any way affect their dignity. When the court held it legal to own slaves, African Americans still had their dignity, as did those who were placed in internment camps by the government." Slappy proves the adage about better better to be silent and thought a fool than to say something and confirm it.

And the party line is now that the Court has veered to the far left. Nobody ever complains when "judicial activism" takes the form of Scalia defining what the Founding Fathers meant.

This anger towards the Court is not good. They're just doing what they've always done. And the rash of "religious freedom" laws that states will enact to "protect" people who don't want to issue licenses or serve pizza to gay weddings will also have its own anomalous consequences.

[Overbrook]

Do you really think they're doing what they've always done?

And the party line is now that the Court has veered to the far left. Nobody ever complains when "judicial activism" takes the form of Scalia defining what the Founding Fathers meant.

This anger towards the Court is not good. They're just doing what they've always done. And the rash of "religious freedom" laws that states will enact to "protect" people who don't want to issue licenses or serve pizza to gay weddings will also have its own anomalous consequences.

From grade school through college, I had nothing but respect for the Court regardless of the political leaning of each member. I believed they made their decisions based on the Constitution and the good of the nation.

That feeling has long gone, and Citizens United was the final straw. To me they're just nine dipshits who have a very cushy job for life. Judge Slappy......really?

[Dim Bulb]

You and Governor Jindal feel the same

From grade school through college, I had nothing but respect for the Court regardless of the political leaning of each member. I believed they made their decisions based on the Constitution and the good of the nation.

That feeling has long gone, and Citizens United was the final straw. To me they're just nine dipshits who have a very cushy job for life. Judge Slappy......really?

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” Jindal said in a statement on Friday. “If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court.”

So when some nutcase bombs the Court, will everyone jump on Jindal and others' comments like this that they created the divide/hate/hate speech and caused this tragedy?

[Maniac]

And the party line is now that the Court has veered to the far left..

Please. That will only play in Republican primaries. Sane America knows it's a center right court.

Roberts backed the ACA because it's good for business.

[Maniac]

Clarence Thomas is a bad joke. Worst Justice of my lifetime.

[Eagle Road]

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” Jindal said in a statement on Friday. “If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court.”

So when some nutcase bombs the Court, will everyone jump on Jindal and others' comments like this that they created the divide/hate/hate speech and caused this tragedy?

Actually IF you wanted to save money and the "Court" is going to make law, just get rid of Congress , essentially cutting out the middleman, now lobbyist can pay the Judges directly, Hmmm makes the CU decision make sense now.