Scotus

[Aglaopheme]

There may already be an existing thread, but it seems like a good week to start a fresh one.

In other SCOTUS news today the justices ruled 5-4 that proof intent is not needed for racial discrimination cases under the Fair Housing Act. Definitely a victory especially coming on the heels of SCOTUS gutting the Voting Rights Act.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I believe they are also due to release decisions on same-sex marriage, lethal injection, clean air regulation by the EPA, and a case that wants to strip lawmakers of partisan redistricting power in favor of it being done by independent commissions.

 

[Busybody]

victory for whom?


so what they really said

some Gov agency can say there is discrimination even though they cant show any!

its all make believe

 

[Aglaopheme]

Wow! 3 for 3

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the U.S. Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, making marriage equality officially the law of the land.

Two questions stood before the high court: Does the 14th Amendment require states to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and does that same amendment require a state to recognize legally valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

The court ruled that the answer to both questions is “yes,” clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry in all 50 states.

It's a great day to be an American, not so much for homophobic bigots though.

 

[Eyereadtoo]

It's a great day to be an American, not so much for homophobic bigots though.

A great day? Five robe-clad, unelected individuals can rewrite the U.S. Constitution and pass law without without the consent of congress and you celebrate that as a "great day?"

You truly are a fucking moron.

In the future when those same five decide that you have absolutely no unalienable rights and strip you of what you believe is your's will you consider that day to be great?

What a fucking idiot you are.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

A great day? Five robe-clad, unelected individuals can rewrite the U.S. Constitution and pass law without without the consent of congress and you celebrate that as a "great day?"

You truly are a fucking moron.

In the future when those same five decide that you have absolutely no unalienable rights and strip you of what you believe is your's will you consider that day to be great?

What a fucking idiot you are.

What part of the Constitution said that marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman? What law did the Supreme Court pass?

Absolutely nothing was stripped away from anyone with this decision. The butt-hurt is strong in you.

 

[Busybody]

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the U.S. Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, making marriage equality officially the law of the land.

Two questions stood before the high court: Does the 14th Amendment require states to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and does that same amendment require a state to recognize legally valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

The court ruled that the answer to both questions is “yes,” clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry in all 50 states.

It's a great day to be an American, not so much for homophobic bigots though.

marriage equality?

that means one man should be able tp marry many wives?

no, they ruled SSM

 

[Busybody]

victory for whom?


so what they really said

some Gov agency can say there is discrimination even though they cant show any!

its all make believe

no answer?

 

[MrRandyWatson]

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the U.S. Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, making marriage equality officially the law of the land.

Two questions stood before the high court: Does the 14th Amendment require states to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and does that same amendment require a state to recognize legally valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

The court ruled that the answer to both questions is “yes,” clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry in all 50 states.

It's a great day to be an American, not so much for homophobic bigots though.

I disagree strongly with this ruling. It is a clear error and a mistake. This is not marriage equality. This is a corruption. The government should not recognize same-sex marriage.

The government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage. Carve up the rights piecemeal and let people assign the rights to whomever the hell they please. Make people file taxes individually. Abolish tenancy of the entirety (joint tenancy plus marriage, for you non-lawyers.) Just...no more marriage. Let the churches handle it and define it however the fuck they please.

People can't handle marriage. They just fuck it up. I mean, why even go to a wedding when it's 50-50 that it just ends in divorce? Would you go to a funeral if it was 50-50 you would see they guy at Starbucks in a week?

Yeah, I'm in a bad mood today. That said, I really do believe that it's time for the government to stop defining marriage at all. Enough debating marriage - let's solve the real problems in this country, like poverty, overcrowded prisons, and people who can't figure out the difference between "less" and "fewer."

 

[Eyereadtoo]

What part of the Constitution said that marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman? What law did the Supreme Court pass?

Absolutely nothing was stripped away from anyone with this decision. The butt-hurt is strong in you.

If you, as a queer, want to be as miserable in a marriage as any other married couple I know then I believe you have that right to be miserable. But until today marriage wasn't mentioned in the Constitution and it took the SCOTUS, and not the voice of the people through amendment ratification, to make it so.

That is a terrible precedent. If a small majority not given legislative power can tell one person what that one person can and can't do then that small majority can, through illegal judicial legislation, define what Ulaven_Demorte can/can't say, think, and do.

Get your head out of your progressive/liberal ass, look around at what your own are doing, and come to the realization that your rights could be next on the chopping block.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://www.animateit.net/data/media/june2010/24pc5ys.gif

ha ha haaaa! Way to go, Scotes!

Transformers: Age Of Butthurt begins.

Tools gonna tool.

 

[Busybody]

marriage equality?

that means one man should be able tp marry many wives?

no, they ruled SSM

no answer?

 

[BotanyBoy]

no answer?

by 2020....bet

 

[dan_c00000]

A great day? Five robe-clad, unelected individuals can rewrite the U.S. Constitution and pass law without without the consent of congress and you celebrate that as a "great day?"

Tell me how you felt when they gave Bush II an election and allowed him to start two wars and create a global recession.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I disagree strongly with this ruling. It is a clear error and a mistake. This is not marriage equality. This is a corruption. The government should not recognize same-sex marriage.

The government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage. Carve up the rights piecemeal and let people assign the rights to whomever the hell they please. Make people file taxes individually. Abolish tenancy of the entirety (joint tenancy plus marriage, for you non-lawyers.) Just...no more marriage. Let the churches handle it and define it however the fuck they please.

People can't handle marriage. They just fuck it up. I mean, why even go to a wedding when it's 50-50 that it just ends in divorce? Would you go to a funeral if it was 50-50 you would see they guy at Starbucks in a week?

Yeah, I'm in a bad mood today. That said, I really do believe that it's time for the government to stop defining marriage at all. Enough debating marriage - let's solve the real problems in this country, like poverty, overcrowded prisons, and people who can't figure out the difference between "less" and "fewer."

Marriage is just as much of a legal contract as it is a social one.
The government MUST be involved, there is no option in this.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If you, as a queer, want to be as miserable in a marriage as any other married couple I know then I believe you have that right to be miserable. But until today marriage wasn't mentioned in the Constitution and it took the SCOTUS, and not the voice of the people through amendment ratification, to make it so.

That is a terrible precedent. If a small majority not given legislative power can tell one person what that one person can and can't do then that small majority can, through illegal judicial legislation, define what Ulaven_Demorte can/can't say, think, and do.

Get your head out of your progressive/liberal ass, look around at what your own are doing, and come to the realization that your rights could be next on the chopping block.

Marriage is STILL not mentioned in the constitution. This decision has taken away the "right" of a small group to tell others what they can and can't do (get married).

Discrimination is not a "right".

 

[just4friends]

Pursuit of Happiness

God given... Inalienable.

Then again... multiple... (legal issues.. hell we can't get ONE will right with one wife)

Animals... ? Seriously is that an argument. You want PETA in court when you get a divorce for BDSM!??

 

[MrRandyWatson]

Marriage is just as much of a legal contract as it is a social one.
The government MUST be involved, there is no option in this.

Feh. Says who? Marriage is about a set of rights. Deconstruct the rights and - voila - no more need for marriage.

Frankly, most of this country has managed to fuck up marriage royally, so the fuckers don't fucking deserve it.

 

[RjThoughts]

ACA affirmed.
Equal marriage rights accepted.
Confederate flags coming down.

What is next to be changed:
Wearing socks with sandals!!

That would totally make Neo-Cons' heads explode

 

[Busybody]

ACA affirmed.
Equal marriage rights accepted.
Confederate flags coming down.

What is next to be changed:
Wearing socks with sandals!!

That would totally make Neo-Cons' heads explode

not equal marraige

ssm

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIbxEfkUEAANyWU.png

 

[JackLuis]

Message to Justice Scalia,

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/butthurt.jpg​

 

[Busybody]

victory for whom?


so what they really said

some Gov agency can say there is discrimination even though they cant show any!

its all make believe

the PUSSY who started teh thread

couldnt answer

why?

we KNOW WHY!

 

[Busybody]

Clarence Thomas: NBA Reveals Problem With Court’s Fair Housing Race Case…

Clarence Thomas

NBA game highlights, rebound, dribble the length of the court and shoot.

This case didn’t get as much attention as Obamacare and gay marriage, but it can be incredibly damaging, finding discrimination when there is in fact none, simply because the ‘impact’ is disparate.

Via Washington Examiner

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday used the racial makeup of the NBA as an example of why the Supreme Court may have “constructed a scheme that parcels out legal privileges to individuals on the basis of skin color” in its ruling on disparate impact claims.

In a victory for civil rights groups and fair housing activists, the Supreme Court upheld the use of disparate impact claims under the 1968 Fair Housing Act in a 5-4 ruling. They ruled that policies and practices that create racial disparities can be challenged under the law, even if there was no motive to discriminate.

But Thomas, the Court’s only black justice, said this is “wholesale inversion of our law’s usual approach” in a dissent that Justice Samuel Alito joined.

The idea that “in the absence of discrimination, an institution’s racial makeup would mirror that of society” has not happened in history because certain ethnic groups tend to veer towards certain professions and education levels, and this happens without discrimination, Thomas argued. He cited the NBA as proof of his claim.

“Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities. At various times in history, ‘racial or ethnic minorities…have owned or directed more than half of whole industries in particular nations,'” wrote Thomas.

“These minorities ‘have included the Chinese in Malaysia, the Lebanese in West Africa, Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, Britons in Argentina, Belgians in Russia, Jews in Poland, and Spaniards in Chile — among many others,'” he wrote. “…And in our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association (NBA) players have been black.”

“To presume that these and all other measurable disparities are products of racial discrimination is to ignore the complexities of human existence,” wrote Thomas.