Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

I'm not particularly enamored with using the due process clause and only using the equal protection clause as a backup, but then if I agreed with the details/methods of a Supreme Court opinion too much it probably would be a sign of the apocalypse. So whatever.

 

[ivysaur12]

I haven't read the majority opinion yet, but I thought Roberts' dissent was very good. Unlike Scalia's dissent in King, Roberts in Obergefell explained his own methodology in addition to critiquing the majority's. In brief, Roberts says that "fundamental rights" must be rooted in tradition, lest judges simply read into the Constitution their own beliefs about what's important--and only traditional marriage is rooted in tradition; and that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated, because there's a good enough reason to distinguish between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples with respect to marriage. On Loving, Roberts is quite clear:



(Thomas' point about Loving, that it concerned a prohibition imposing criminal sanctions for interracial marriage, and not merely a failure to recognize the marriage, also bears keeping in mind. Roberts' reference to common law, which had no ban on interracial marriage, and Thomas' footnote 5, which discusses the origin of interracial-marriage bans, also serve to distinguish that case from this one.)

Regarding biology, Roberts' point is that a couple consisting of opposite-sex members is a necessary condition to procreation, and so it makes sense to offer the benefits of marriage only that far. He also believes that the rational basis test is the appropriate level of scrutiny in this case, and so the fit between the government interest being furthered and the method by which the government seeks to further that interest need not be perfect. (By the way, under this reasoning, it's likely that Roberts would vote to permit a state to refuse to recognize a marriage involving an infertile partner, since the applicable level of scrutiny would still be the rational basis test.)

Finally, the problem that the dissenters have with the impact of this ruling is not that it will have one, but that it will have one despite lacking Constitutional justification. Here's Roberts again:



Also, I thought Alito's footnote 2 was interesting, in that it referenced websites "as visited June 24, 2015," indicating that at least some work was still being done of his dissent as of two days ago.

Maybe it's the wine, but literally nothing about Robert's dissent could be considered "good". Not just from a personal level. The majority opinion deals with his critiques in good stride.

It's an awful, terribly written dissent that ignores any semblance of realty and one that -- secondary to any Constitutuonal issues -- will haunt his legitimacy as the Chief Justice for years to come.

It's just bad many different ways that you slice it.

I'm not particularly enamored with using the due process clause and only using the equal protection clause as a backup, but then if I agreed with the details/methods of a Supreme Court opinion too much it probably would be a sign of the apocalypse. So whatever.

O U

 

[Metaphoreus]

Maybe it's the wine, but literally nothing about Robert's dissent could be considered "good". Not just from a personal level. The majority opinion deals with his critiques in good stride.

It's an awful, terribly written dissent that ignores any semblance of realty and one that -- secondary to any Constitutuonal issues -- will haunt his legitimacy as the Chief Justice for years to come.

It's just bad many different ways that you slice it.

Like I said, I haven't read the majority opinion yet, and maybe that will change how I view Roberts' dissent. I'm sure I'll have something to say on that subject later.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Bernie interview with C-SPAN 6/25/15

Bernie is definitely outworking Hillary in the media. She is totally resting on her laurels. Tortoise and the Hare scenario?

 

[Hyperactivity]

Bernie interview with C-SPAN 6/25/15

Bernie is definitely outworking Hillary in the media. She is totally resting on her laurels. Tortoise and the Hare scenario?

my guess is that she's trying to avoid a gaffe

 

[BertramCooper]

Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court

I love how they keep pushing this "SCOTUS is lawless" rhetoric, preying on the fact that their base has no fucking clue how the Supreme Court works.

Bernie interview with C-SPAN 6/25/15

Bernie is definitely outworking Hillary in the media. She is totally resting on her laurels. Tortoise and the Hare scenario?

If this is a tortoise-and-the-hare scenario, we're talking about a hare who's about 20 times the size of the tortoise, and as a result, needs to take only a fraction of the steps that the tortoise needs to take to cross the finish line.

 

[Y2Kev]

I thought this was a net positive for the GOP but it seems obvious they can't help themselves. They're still all saying bad things.

 

[BertramCooper]

I thought this was a net positive for the GOP but it seems obvious they can't help themselves. They're still all saying bad things.

It's not going to stick around for decades the way the abortion issue has, but there was no way the GOP rank-and-file were going to be over the issue of SSM by 2016.

2018? Maybe. 2020? By that point it's probably relegated to the fringe, for the most part.

 

[FiggyCal]

I thought this was a net positive for the GOP but it seems obvious they can't help themselves. They're still all saying bad things.

I'm sure they'll be running against it.

Bernie interview with C-SPAN 6/25/15

Bernie is definitely outworking Hillary in the media. She is totally resting on her laurels. Tortoise and the Hare scenario?

She doesn't need to do anything. Everyone knows who she is and probably have already assumed where her positions are. She really can only do damage right now. No one knows who Bernie is and he is probably going to be seen as a fringe candidate for some time.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I love how they keep pushing this "SCOTUS is lawless" rhetoric, preying on the fact that their base has no fucking clue how the Supreme Court works.

Could you expand on what you mean by the bolded?

 

[BertramCooper]

Could you expand on what you mean by the bolded?

A sizable portion of people - on both sides, probably, but especially on the right in this specific case - can't grasp how the unelected Supreme Court is able to strike down citizen referenda.

Republican presidential candidates, most of whom are lawyers and know perfectly well how SCOTUS is able to do this, seem eager to exploit this ignorance by terming this week's decisions as "lawlessness."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not particularly enamored with using the due process clause and only using the equal protection clause as a backup, but then if I agreed with the details/methods of a Supreme Court opinion too much it probably would be a sign of the apocalypse. So whatever.

Its clear Kennedy doesn't want to establish gays as a protected class. With all the praising of him as a someone whos done so much for gays he's still not truly applied the equal protection clause to gays as a class.
Its disappointing, and singles Kennedy might side with some of these religious conscious acts.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

 

[Yamauchi]

Gosh, I love Bernie Sanders.

“Urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people.”

"Because it’s too easy for “liberals” to be saying ‘well let’s use this phrase’ (black lives matter). Well, what are we going to do about 51-percent of young African Americans unemployed?"

 

[Diablos]

9/11, Pearl Harbor, Bush v. Gore, Tea Party, Citizens United

ftfy

 

[Coriolanus]

Gosh, I love Bernie Sanders.

"Because it’s too easy for “liberals” to be saying ‘well let’s use this phrase’ (black lives matter). Well, what are we going to do about 51-percent of young African Americans unemployed?"

To be fair..

DG: But if I may return to my question, we had the voice of a woman on our air who protested in Ferguson. She said she needs to hear her president say the lives of my children matter, my little black children matter. I mean, are you ready to go to Ferguson and say black lives matter?

BS: Am I ready to go to Ferguson? What do you think I've been saying on the floor? When the lives matter, it means we are not going to accept police brutality or illegal behavior against young African-Americans OR anybody else. But when you talk about "lives matter," sometimes what we forget is when 51 percent of young African-American kids are unemployed. Are those lives that matter?

 

[Diablos]

A sizable portion of people - on both sides, probably, but especially on the right in this specific case - can't grasp how the unelected Supreme Court is able to strike down citizen referenda.

Republican presidential candidates, most of whom are lawyers and know perfectly well how SCOTUS is able to do this, seem eager to exploit this ignorance by terming this week's decisions as "lawlessness."

We only praise the SCOTUS when they make decisions we agree with. I guess I don't mind admitting that when Republicans would rather jump into another one of their alternate dimensions.

I'd agree, generally speaking, that there is something unsettling about an unelected panel of 9 people (who may basically stay there until death if they so desire) who can make decisions that literally impact every single American in some way. I don't dispute that. It's like they can just hit a switch and as though it were magic, alter the lives of millions on a whim. What is funny to me, however, are Republicans acting like this so-called "lawless" court that "legislates from the bench" has never benefited them in any way. Citizens United, anyone? Bush v. Gore?

Candidly, I'd like to think the SCOTUS should only serve as an ultimate check to something that could simply not be settled in lower courts/other branches of Government. Given how dysfunctional Congress is and this country's perverse obsession with lawyering up, the highest court of the land is being... utilized, per se, more than it should be in my opinion. King v. Burwell, for example, had no place there. It never should have made it to the Supreme Court. Roberts made that ABUNDANTLY clear and trolled the dissenters by calling them out on trying to have it both ways in the now two ACA-centric cases that were put before them. Kennedy voted to tear the law to shreds in 2012, but even he couldn't side with the plaintiffs on this absolute farce of a case. Ultimately, not only did the plaintiffs lose but they shoveled dirt onto themselves by essentially forcing the majority to acknowledge the subsidies as valid in all 50 states no matter who the President is. If the lawyers behind King knew what they know now, they would have dropped this case like a hot potato.

I'm ranting, but the notion, btw, that Roberts is somehow betraying his conservative base is horseshit. His dissent yesterday confirms this. He is still a very conservative-minded Justice on key issues, but he also has some common sense.

 

[FiggyCal]

Gosh, I love Bernie Sanders.

“Urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people.”

"Because it’s too easy for “liberals” to be saying ‘well let’s use this phrase’ (black lives matter). Well, what are we going to do about 51-percent of young African Americans unemployed?"

Are those supposed to be negative quotes?

 

[Diablos]

I love Bernie too, but he's not electable.

 

[BertramCooper]

We only praise the SCOTUS when they make decisions we agree with. I guess I don't mind admitting that when Republicans would rather jump into another one of their alternate dimensions.

I'd agree, generally speaking, that there is something unsettling about an unelected panel of 9 people (who may basically stay there until death if they so desire) who can make decisions that literally impact every single American in some way. I don't dispute that. It's like they can just hit a switch and as though it were magic, alter the lives of millions on a whim. What is funny to me, however, are Republicans acting like this so-called "lawless" court that "legislates from the bench" has never benefited them in any way. Citizens United, anyone? Bush v. Gore?

Candidly, I'd like to think the SCOTUS should only serve as an ultimate check to something that could simply not be settled in lower courts/other branches of Government. Given how dysfunctional Congress is and this country's perverse obsession with lawyering up, the highest court of the land is being... utilized, per se, more than it should be in my opinion. King v. Burwell, for example, had no place there. It never should have made it to the Supreme Court. Roberts made that ABUNDANTLY clear and trolled the dissenters by calling them out on trying to have it both ways in the now two ACA-centric cases that were put before them. Kennedy voted to tear the law to shreds in 2012, but even he couldn't side with the plaintiffs on this absolute farce of a case. Ultimately, not only did the plaintiffs lose but they shoveled dirt onto themselves by essentially forcing the majority to acknowledge the subsidies as valid in all 50 states no matter who the President is. If the lawyers behind King knew what they know now, they would have dropped this case like a hot potato.

I'm ranting, but the notion, btw, that Roberts is somehow betraying his conservative base is horseshit. His dissent yesterday confirms this. He is still a very conservative-minded Justice on key issues, but he also has some common sense.

Agreed on most points, but you're getting far beyond my original point, which is that we do a shockingly poor job of educating our society on how the Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch works.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had on whether or not our Constitution grants too much power to the Supreme Court. But it's the fact that decisions like this happen and then people are like, "WHAT? HOW CAN THEY DO THIS?" that's deeply disturbing to me. If our public schools all had decent civics curricula, we'd all know exactly how they can do this.

And this also gets to another point: I think the Supreme Court is too insulated from public view, and that it contributes to public ignorance on the subject. I don't necessarily think oral arguments should be broadcast, since justices ask all sorts of hypothetical questions that could be easily misinterpreted when taken out of context, but I absolutely believe the reading of opinions should be broadcast, on video, for all to see.

 

[FiggyCal]

This kid might have a future in politics:

Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders

Or maybe I just like when people speak well of Bernie.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sanders is unelectable.

 

[Wilsongt]

There's a great compilation in the salt thread in OT main.

Here you go: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170005115&postcount=152

I find those comments to be less salty and more hateful ramblings of some people with a potential mental illness...

Some of those comments just make no sense in the real world and it's kind of scary.

 

[Gotchaye]

I thought this was a net positive for the GOP but it seems obvious they can't help themselves. They're still all saying bad things.

I don't think it could have been a positive. Something really striking yesterday was how just about every big company put up a rainbow twitter logo. Not many just tried to stay out of it, even for obviously politically neutral kinds of businesses who have a lot of customers in red states. I don't think you can really be anti- gay marriage, or even not pro- gay marriage, and win points with most Americans anymore. Before the decision we were at 60% support for gay marriage and for not even allowing states to refuse to recognize it.

Opposition to gay marriage is only going to be a majority position in thoroughly red states now, which means you might have to play to it to win the primary but it's a drag in the general, and probably a lot of the remaining opponents are particularly enthusiastic and likely to force the issue where they can.

 

[Black Mamba]

lol cnn.

@JeffSharlet: Best ever: CNN "reports" on ISIS flag at Gay Pride. They don't get it's a bunch of dildos. https://t.co/8RLNp3oygX Via @gaywonk

 

[T'Zariah]

I don't think it could have been a positive. Something really striking yesterday was how just about every big company put up a rainbow twitter logo. Not many just tried to stay out of it, even for obviously politically neutral kinds of businesses who have a lot of customers in red states. I don't think you can really be anti- gay marriage, or even not pro- gay marriage, and win points with most Americans anymore. Before the decision we were at 60% support for gay marriage and for not even allowing states to refuse to recognize it.

Opposition to gay marriage is only going to be a majority position in thoroughly red states now, which means you might have to play to it to win the primary but it's a drag in the general, and probably a lot of the remaining opponents are particularly enthusiastic and likely to force the issue where they can.

At least one thing is clear.

2016 is absolutely the LAST election year gay marriage will be an issue.

Try to bring it up in 2020?

That's NOT going to end well.

 

[BertramCooper]

SMH.

The sad thing is this is probably one of my more reasonable conservative friends.

I can't deal with this stupidity.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

SMH.

The sad thing is this is probably one of my more reasonable conservative friends.

I can't deal with this stupidity.

I think that a lot of people aren't aware that marriage is a different thing when considered by religion and considered by the state. I think a lot of people are under the impression that it's a religious concept that is recognized by the state, and not that it's a different institution in the two contexts. Most of these people probably signed their marriage certificates in a church and not in a clerk's office.

That's also stupid because you want to eliminate the federal mandate for marriage equality by.... instituting marriage equality while removing the civil benefits? That doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything at all aside from creating a bureaucratic and legislative mess.

 

[BertramCooper]

I think that a lot of people aren't aware that marriage is a different thing when considered by religion and considered by the state. I think a lot of people are under the impression that it's a religious concept that is recognized by the state, and not that it's a different institution in the two contexts. Most of these people probably signed their marriage certificates in a church and not in a clerk's office.

That's also stupid because you want to eliminate the federal mandate for marriage equality by.... instituting marriage equality while removing the civil benefits? That doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything at all aside from creating a bureaucratic and legislative mess.

The primary motivation behind that Alabama bill was that a bunch of their judges didn't want to be forced to perform same-sex marriages. (SHOCKING!)

The intent alone should kill that bill and other ones like it. It's just another case of a southern state trying anything possible to subvert a civil rights victory.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

The primary motivation behind that Alabama bill was that a bunch of their judges didn't want to be forced to perform same-sex marriages. (SHOCKING!)

The intent alone should kill that bill and other ones like it. It's just another case of a southern state trying anything possible to subvert a civil rights victory.

I have to say I'm very proud of South Carolina. Both for the rebel flag response and I found out yesterday they've been handing out licenses since the circuit court decision on Nov. 19th, didn't hold out for the SCOTUS ruling like GA, AL, and LA. I might actually start telling people I meet in real life I'm from there instead of just saying "born there."

I still don't get it though. That still legalizes gay marriage, you'd just have to find the judges that would be willing to perform them. Was it literally only drafted at the behest of individual judges that didn't want to be forced to issue the licenses? That's absurd.

 

[BertramCooper]

I have to say I'm very proud of South Carolina. Both for the rebel flag response and I found out yesterday they've been handing out licenses since the circuit court decision on Nov. 19th, didn't hold out for the SCOTUS ruling like GA, AL, and LA. I might actually start telling people I meet in real life I'm from there instead of just saying "born there."

I still don't get it though. That still legalizes gay marriage, you'd just have to find the judges that would be willing to perform them. Was it literally only drafted at the behest of individual judges that didn't want to be forced to issue the licenses? That's absurd.

It's partially that, and partially the Alabama Senate just being a bunch of dicks.

 

[Retromelon]

Uh oh! kagan and sotomayor will be out of work soon!


http://m.firstpost.com/world/bobby-jindal-response-legal-sex-marriages-lets-get-rid-us-supreme-court-2315528.html

Finding himself at odds with the US Supreme Court over its two landmark judgements upholding healthcare law and same-sex marriage, Louisiana's Indian-American governor Bobby Jindal wants to get rid of the court.
"Thursday, the Supreme Court had its say on Obamacare; soon, the American people will have theirs," wrote the newly minted aspirant for Republican nomination for President in an opinion piece in Time magazine.

 

[Coriolanus]

"We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,"

Good times.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Uh oh! kagan and sotomayor will be out of work soon!


http://m.firstpost.com/world/bobby-jindal-response-legal-sex-marriages-lets-get-rid-us-supreme-court-2315528.html

"I'm upset that gay marriage wasn't a product of popular democracy, and that the supreme court issued a decision in line with the popular opinion of a majority of American Citizens."

Good grief.

Jindal is going to be very interesting because he's basically the policy equivalent of Bachmann or Palin but about 70% more articulate.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't think it could have been a positive. Something really striking yesterday was how just about every big company put up a rainbow twitter logo. Not many just tried to stay out of it, even for obviously politically neutral kinds of businesses who have a lot of customers in red states. I don't think you can really be anti- gay marriage, or even not pro- gay marriage, and win points with most Americans anymore. Before the decision we were at 60% support for gay marriage and for not even allowing states to refuse to recognize it.

Opposition to gay marriage is only going to be a majority position in thoroughly red states now, which means you might have to play to it to win the primary but it's a drag in the general, and probably a lot of the remaining opponents are particularly enthusiastic and likely to force the issue where they can.

I thought it was going to be a net positive because it would give people like Marco Rubio the opportunity to say, "we are a country of laws and must respect the decision," an avenue he largely took with his comments. But basically everybody else said things that would evidence they continue to hold unpopular views, like supposedly electable Scott walker. I don't understand why you'd dip your feet in this shark pool.

 

[Retromelon]

If scott walker were a boxer his nickname would be like
"And here's your reigning governor, the one, the only...SCOTT "supposedly electable" WALKERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Gotchaye]

I thought it was going to be a net positive because it would give people like Marco Rubio the opportunity to say, "we are a country of laws and must respect the decision," an avenue he largely took with his comments. But basically everybody else said things that would evidence they continue to hold unpopular views, like supposedly electable Scott walker. I don't understand why you'd dip your feet in this shark pool.

Oh, then I guess like my second paragraph suggests I think the issue for them is that they're in a really competitive primary where their first concern is just getting noticed. For Walker, his whole thing is that he fights liberals; his whole appeal is that he's the kind of guy that would oppose a Supreme Court decision like this. So he's stuck, I think. Maybe a couple of them can afford to try being electable and bland, but they're counting on almost everybody else self-destructing Perry-style.

 

[Jackson50]

Uh oh! kagan and sotomayor will be out of work soon!


http://m.firstpost.com/world/bobby-jindal-response-legal-sex-marriages-lets-get-rid-us-supreme-court-2315528.html

Abolishing one of the foundational institutions of our republic does not seem very conservative.

 

[Coriolanus]

Abolishing one of the foundational institutions of our republic does not seem very conservative.

Pish posh. He's proposing to cut a whole branch of government, which translates into reducing government by one third! What could be more conservative than that?

 

[BertramCooper]

We should ask Rick Perry which three branches of government he wants to abolish.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Seems like juniors just want to get banned now. Thread carefully my friends.

Does anyone honestly believe Scalia or Kennedy is going to step down between 2017-2025 assuming Hillary servers 8 years?

 

[FyreWulff]

2025 ages

Ginsberg - 92
Scalia - 89
Kennedy - 88
Breyer - 86
Thomas - 77
Alito - 75
Sotomayor - 71
Roberts - 70
Kagan - 65

No matter who wins 2016, you're gonna see at least two strategic retirements minimum.

 

[thepotatoman]

I haven't read the majority opinion yet, but I thought Roberts' dissent was very good. Unlike Scalia's dissent in King, Roberts in Obergefell explained his own methodology in addition to critiquing the majority's. In brief, Roberts says that "fundamental rights" must be rooted in tradition, lest judges simply read into the Constitution their own beliefs about what's important--and only traditional marriage is rooted in tradition; and that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated, because there's a good enough reason to distinguish between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples with respect to marriage. On Loving, Roberts is quite clear:



(Thomas' point about Loving, that it concerned a prohibition imposing criminal sanctions for interracial marriage, and not merely a failure to recognize the marriage, also bears keeping in mind. Roberts' reference to common law, which had no ban on interracial marriage, and Thomas' footnote 5, which discusses the origin of interracial-marriage bans, also serve to distinguish that case from this one.)

Regarding biology, Roberts' point is that a couple consisting of opposite-sex members is a necessary condition to procreation, and so it makes sense to offer the benefits of marriage only that far. He also believes that the rational basis test is the appropriate level of scrutiny in this case, and so the fit between the government interest being furthered and the method by which the government seeks to further that interest need not be perfect. (By the way, under this reasoning, it's likely that Roberts would vote to permit a state to refuse to recognize a marriage involving an infertile partner, since the applicable level of scrutiny would still be the rational basis test.)

Finally, the problem that the dissenters have with the impact of this ruling is not that it will have one, but that it will have one despite lacking Constitutional justification. Here's Roberts again:



Also, I thought Alito's footnote 2 was interesting, in that it referenced websites "as visited June 24, 2015," indicating that at least some work was still being done of his dissent as of two days ago.

Seems like the difference between a "definition" and a "ban" is mostly just a technicality. If the states used a definition that said "marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race", would Loving really not apply, outside of Robert's biological rational basis test?

I suppose that biological rational basis test is what it comes down to. But would the justices really rule that way? Or are they only choosing this line of argument because they know that'd never happen and want to find an excuse to be able to hold back one's liberty because they find that particular liberty icky?

They complain so much about the decision being unconstitutional, but I don't see how you can definitively say that their definition of marriage is objectively constitutional while Kennedy's isn't. Neither of those definitions of liberties are exactly defined in the constitution. What constitutes a liberty at that point is mostly just a matter of opinion. Maybe Robert's definition of that liberty would hold up to precedent, but Kennedy's definition seems to hold up just as well. The only objective difference I might see is that Robert's opinion would have a lesser judicial impact, but I guess you're right that the size of the judicial impact doesn't really matter to them.

 

[Jackson50]

We should ask Rick Perry which three branches of government he wants to abolish.

Radical judicial legislators, Planned Parenthood, and...I can’t...the third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.

 

[Retromelon]

Radical judicial legislators, Planned Parenthood, and...I can’t...the third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.

The DEA!

 

[Oblivion]

I'm actually surprised Roberts voted against this? Whatever happened to him being good (or at least not terrible) on social issues and being worried about the legacy of the court?

 

[Yellowtail]

2025 ages

Ginsberg - 92
Scalia - 89
Kennedy - 88
Breyer - 86
Thomas - 77
Alito - 75
Sotomayor - 71
Roberts - 70
Kagan - 65

No matter who wins 2016, you're gonna see at least two strategic retirements minimum.

How is Clarence Thomas so young? I can't believe he's only two years older than Alito. He's going to be the longest serving SCOTUS justice ever isn't he. ;_:

 

[Retromelon]

I'm actually surprised Roberts voted against this? Whatever happened to him being good (or at least not terrible) on social issues and being worried about the legacy of the court?

In his dissent he wrote that he wishes no ill will towards gays and that he hopes they celebrate the ruling, but he wishes that gay marriage could have succeeded democratically without the involvement of the supreme court and feels like the constitution had nothing to do with the case.

 

[BertramCooper]

In his dissent he wrote that he wishes no ill will towards gays and that he hopes they celebrate the ruling, but he wishes that gay marriage could have succeeded democratically without the involvement of the supreme court and feels like the constitution had nothing to do with the case.

I don't know how he can hear the story of Jim Obergefell and then tell gays they should have had to wait for the democratic process to play out.

It's just completely heartless.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't know how he can hear the story of Jim Obergefell and then tell gays they should have had to wait for the democratic process to play out.

It's just completely heartless.

Not all good things are constitutional and not all bad things are unconstitutional.

However, bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional for a host of different reasons, ranging from due process to rational basis to even sex discrimination.

The feigned sympathy towards the plight of gay couples wishing they could achieve this through the legislative process is uneeded. In even five years, your average American will have no idea how we got here, nor will they care. And real couples won't be harmed. It' a win win.