Fairly by *your * definition? Speaking of debased currency…
May we take it you’ve got no position left standing on the actual topic?
Here’s why it **is **worthy of comparison. You have imbued the justices with the power to be our conscience, and to mold the law in the direction. You have, in fact, said it’s there highest duty to do this. By what principle do these judges determine when that molding of the law is out of bounds? When it morphs from a red apple to an orange orangutan?
The constitution? Can’t be that, you’ve already said there is a “truer” sense of the constitution beyond the text. No, it can only be the inner most conscience of the justice herself. And if that conscience cries out to protect the lives of unborn children , then that judge is only following the directive you gave her.
There are those people who passionately believe that killing unborn children (or even fetuses if you prefer that term) is murder. Not the odd death of a woman at the hands of a backstreet abortionist, but the wholesale, state sanctioned murder of tens of thousands of unborn children. It’s not an argument I agree with, but it is one that has some merit, especially if we’re talking about 2nd trimester and beyond.
**
How exactly does a justice decide for herself when to use her conscience and when not to?**
No. Most of those who read standard English fluently would recognize the meaning as being “by the definition of the moderate”.
Is it that you can’t read, or that you don’t read?
Regards,
Shodan
Psst. Bricker. That’s Elvis over there. I’m the good looking one.
No - by yours. I said I’d accept anyone you nominate as moderate, and I will. I rejected your choice of YOU because I asked for someone not already a participant in this thread. Pick someone you truly think is a moderate. Go on.
I’ll try to use littler words, then.
Only to the extent that they’re used as part of a well-regulated militia. Otherwise the right, not being specifically granted, doesn’t exist, does it? 
Already done. The right exists unless it is abridged or infringed upon, just like you claim the Second is. Situational ethics, anyone?
Does that include or not include the right to marriage?
Nor is anyone doing any such thing.. Who do you think is being imposed upon? Who is being forced to marry someone they don’t want to? What rights are being trampled upon? Are you actually claiming that refusing the government to act in a discriminatory manner without a legitimate basis is a violation of the rights of bigots?
The term “the states” includes the entire government of the states, including their courts. Deal with it.
Fucking knock that shit off already. It’s both boring and a lie.
Ooops. I’m dumb as a box of rocks.
Bricker, the answer would seem to be No, you don’t have a position left standing relevant to the topic. If you’re now reduced to pettifogging about format issues, it’s over.
Nah, our Mom made the same mistake all the time, kept tying the pork chop around my neck.
ElvisL1ves, I think that shodan, and others are correct when they say that they has proven that the mass. ruling was incorrectly making new laws, not enforcing old ones. Why, because he has said it a lot, this thread is in republican-lands, and if someone says something over-and-over, once people stop arguing the point, it is considered true. :rolleyes:
Oh, also, since Bricker just keeps on distorting the issue, in one sense the debate is over, but in another sense, it is over once people stop arguing with him, and leave the playground, leaving him all alone. Should this turn into a bunch of republican back slapping however, to the point that the thread becomes nothing but straw men, chewed-over by bricker, I would advocate popping back in, however to correct him, but only briefly.
So you didn’t read the whole post, is that the problem?
It does. As soon as the right to gay marriage is recognized by the states and the people. It’s not included in the Constitution, because, well, because it doesn’t appear there. So the courts don’t have the right to put it there. Because that can only be done by the states and the people. Like it says in the Tenth Amendment.
You mean apart from you and your cohort? You are trying to get the courts to override the Constitution to serve your convenience.
No, what I am saying is that the courts establishing new rights is a violation of the Constitution.
Really? Where in the Constitution is that defined?
Or perhaps more appropriately, how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that one?
Put it this way. Roe v. Wade overruled the right of the states to regulate abortion. By your theory of the Constitution, that was wrong and needs to be overturned. Right?
Oh, all right, this one time.
Fuck you, you moronic asshole,
Shodan
Not rights, powers. This is just a statement of federalism (pretty much ignored these days). But **Elvis **is right, in that “the states” means “the government of the states” which includes the state judiciaries. How could it not be so?
How far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that one? Seriously, how far? Repeating the claim that the decission of the Mass. courts was “establishing new rights” does not in any way make it true. Oh, and last time I looked, you are being a creep, not Elvis, or anyone else that disagrees with you. Now, you might not like the fact that their opinions difer, or that they are insulting you, but they are in support of increased freedom, while you apperar not to be. Thus, despite whatever tone your opponent takes, you are a :wally , not the oposition. As I recall, someone once said, “The measure of a nation is in how it treats its women and minorities.” What conclusion does that lead people to, if you, and others are oppositing the fair and equal treatment of minorities?
Shodan, do you believe that speech on an internet message board is protected by the first amendment?
Can you point to where the first amendment specifically grants freedom of speech on internet messege boards?
Clearly, the Constitution does not need to explicitly mention internet messege boards for Courts to recognize that internet messege board posts fall under the category of speech, and thusly be protected by the first amendment.
Similarly, gay marriage restrictions entails the government treating people differently, which is what equal protection deals with. The Courts recognize that gay marriage restrictions fall within the category of equal protection. The only question is whether gay marriage restrictions are an acceptable exception (similar to how obscenity and fire in a movie theater are acceptable exceptions to free speech).
I didn’t get it from my ass. I got it from the Tenth Amendment.
No, that’s quite true. Neither does denying it make it false. That is established by rational argument.
The conclusion it leads me to is that you have no real idea how to answer any of the arguments presented. And that you are attempting to win the argument by begging the question, and assuming a priori that objecting to the unrestricted rule of judges is “oppositing the fair and equal treatment of minorities”.
Perhaps you would like to take a crack at it. Where in the Constitution does it say that gay marriage is a right that should be established by judges rather than by the states, or the people? And if it is not there, and you say that judges should go ahead and impose it nevertheless, how do you react when judges begin imposing other brand-new rights that you find less congenial?
Perhaps you could take a crack at that. On what basis would you object to a Supreme Court ruling saying that a fetus had a right to exist beginning at conception, and that this right was guaranteed by the Constitution?
Regards,
Shodan
Protected from whom? From the moderators, who are private citizens? No, I have no First Amendment right to post on this messageboard. It’s a discussion that comes up a lot on the SDMB. They can ban me for no other reason than they don’t like what I say, and I have no redress under the First Amendment.
Protected from the government? That is another matter. As I mentioned earlier, the government is the one whose rights do not exist unless they are explicitly established by the Constitution. I would object to a ruling saying that the government could censor or supress my postings on the SDMB because they didn’t like the content just as much - probably a lot more - than I do to an attempt to impose a new right to gay marriage by judicial fiat.
Again, you need to keep in mind whose rights are limited, and how they are established. The government’s rights are limited only to those explicitly stated in the Constitution. That includes limits on how new rights are brought under the protection of government. I have no right to be free from an income tax, for instance, because the Constitution has been amended to give the government the right to collect it from me. The government cannot impose an ex post facto law on me or anyone else, however. That right is specifically forbidden to the government. See the distinction?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan , your reading of the tenth amendment ignores a point already made by [BElvis**, and even John Mace. (I was about to say Tabor, but that is a slighly diffrent point.) By posting in response to my post, while ignoring a need to answer their point, you show you are not actually interested in anything but contradicting others. Now, about my ignoring your argument, you are quite right. I came onto this thread to point out how insane it is to oppose the right for two people to have certain legal rights, and have no interest in arguing any “need” to restrain judges. I have argued every point I saw, only to see you go back to the same point dismissed pages ago. Now, you are playing pretend that I am arguing that the judges should have unlimeted power. While I am in fact arguing a priori, my assumption is that they have com to the conclussion that there is no reason to deny people a specific right, should it not conflict with another. I believe this in garanted by the 9th, while you somehow don’t. Your reasons for doing so, as has already been said, would deny any minority any rights at all. Insane. :rolleyes: As I said in:
Well, lets pose a hypothetical. If the Founding Fuckups had goofed, and failed to include a 2nd Amendment guaranteeing my deranged Uncle Filbert his right to whatever firepower his little heart desires would that mean that the right never existed in the first place?
Shodan’s relentless insistence that a right not specificly addressed in the Constitution does not exist necessarily contradicts the Dec of Ind, wherein we hold these rights to be self-evident, and that among these rights…note well, among, part of a larger group not specified further… are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think it entirely reasonable to presume that people marry as a “pursuit of happiness”.
Hence, we may reasonably assume that gay people seeking to marry are seeking happiness.
Now then the Constitution is at great pains to establish limitations on government power to infringe or control those rights. Looked at from that viewpoint, the Constitution need not specify all the human rights, since it is not establishing those rights, they already exist. The Constitution is concerned with establishing what exceptions are and are not acceptable. For instance, Congress may not restrict freedom of worship by establishing a church, etc. etc.
If I see a sign says “No Parking, 9-3 p.m. Thursday” I am entirely reasonable if I assume that parking at 5 pm on Fridays is legit. I do not need that the sign explicate for me every single instance when parking is acceptable, it tells me what is not acceptable, and I am free to assume that all other times are OK.
If we assume that the right to marry is part and parcel of a pursuit of happiness and the Constitution is silent as to any restrictions upon marriage, we are free to assume that the institution of marriage is available to all who pursue happiness.
So, to put the absurd shoe on the other silly foot…since the Constitution does not specificly disallow marriage between persons of the gay persuasion, no such disallowance is Constitutional. The Const. is at great pains to make clear that if they have not specificly permitted an infringement of a human right, any such infringement is unConstitutional.
Viewed from that angle, a strict reading of the Constitution is silent on the issue of SSM, and must therefore be assumed to have no opinion, and hence, no restriction. Therefore, a judge is entirely within the technical limits of the law to judge any such restriction as being unconstitutional.
Now, personally, I think that would be something of an unreasonable stretch. If pressed, the Founding Fathers might very well been moved to insist that marriage be defined in the traditional manner. But the fact remains that they did not, and therefore any such restriction would require a Constitutional amendment in order to be legitimate. And until such time, a judge is entirely and strictly correct to rule that laws forbidding an otherwise harmless set of citizens from excercising thier right to pursue happiness is right out!
Later legal decisions have established reasonable limitations on such rights, as in the famous example of shouting “Theater!” in a crowded fire. But those limitations are reasonable, based on a reasonable assessment of probable consequence, i.e., stampede and panic. Is anyone going to suggest that permitting gays to marry is likely to cause stampede and panic? I thought not.
There’s actually a lot to be said about the MA court decision on SSM. My only real complaint with it was the timeframe it imposed on the legislature-- ie, 6 months. I could even buy into luci’s “conscience” theory of the judiciary had they acted in this manner:
**Note from MA SC to MA Legislature: We find the principles of “equality before the law” and “liberty and due process” in the MA state constitution to be incompatible with the current ban on SSM. While it is true that the institution of marriage has historically been construed to be a union between a man and a woman, this tradition was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of same sex relationships. The medical profression no longer recognizes homosexuality as a mental disorder, and we need to modify our laws accordingly. This judiciary enjoins the Legislature to make explicit the rights and responsibilities of same sex couples. Simply put, we can longer just assume that marrige is a union of a man and a woman.
Recognizing that the process to amend the state constitution is a lengthy one, this judiciary puts a 3 year timeframe on this judgement. If, after that time, the legislature is unable to update and clarify the priviledges and responsibilities of same sex couples, this judiciary will rule that there is no basis to exclude same sex couples from the identical priviledges and responsibilties enjoyed by opposite sex couples in the instutition of marriage.**
But by giving the legislature only 6 months, as they did, the judiciary ensured that no other result other than SSM could be achieved. Now, you may argue that 3 years is simply too long to wait. But that timeframe is determined by the multi-year process necessary to amend the state constitution. Had this been another state, with a different, shorter process, then a shorter timeframe would have been appropriate. Had this been a matter of life and death, then, too, a shorter timeframe would have been appropriate.
When it comes down to it, my position on this issue differs from 'lcui, Elvis and others only in the timeframe given to the legislature to address the issue first.
Since, you know, we are talking about the constitution, I considered it trivially obvious that the constitution dealt with the powers of the government, not board moderaters.
do you want to respond to my point now that we have that out of the way?