It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy Theorists Justice Scalia: "this court's threat to American democracy."

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Where in the constitution is the federal government given power over marriage rites?

Which amendment guarantees any two people the right to marry?
Where in the constitution does the state have power to determine who has the right to marry, and who doesn't?

Which amendment gave marriage rights only to straight people?




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually, progressives say you can have any opinion you want, but religious opinion can't be law.

I love this myth that Progressives want to take away your 1st amendment rights.
Do some progressives want to make "hate speech" illegal? You bet! Those are the radical left that make the moderate left look bad. Just as the radical right make the moderate right look bad.


Really? Like shutting down pizza joints and bakeries?

Just stop, every damn thing on the progressive agenda is about silencing opposition or making them irrelevant......

Wake up , if you honestly believe what you just wrote, there is a laundry list of examples by the progressive left that prove they arent about anyting but making it where you cant have a different opinion



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



I find it troubling that the gov is involved at all


That line has been a convenient fall-back argument for those that disagrees with gay marriage. Heard it too many times.

Those same people do not have a problem when government steps in to protect their rights, such as the 2nd amendment, but cry about government involvement when they protect someone's rights that they disagree with.

If there is anything our government should exist to do, it is to uphold our individual rights.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This is why we have checks and balances. If a state votes on something that is clearly unconstitutional, it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on it, in order to ensure a state isn't allowed to do something against the constitution.
If a state voted to legalize lynchings of blacks and gays, should it be allowed just because the majority in that state voted for it?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Citizens shut down those bakeries and pizza joints, the citizens did NOT force the government to shut it down. If anything, it was capitalism at it's finest. That point is flawed.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: wasaka

I actually made a comparison about the assault on democracy and a selective usage of our rights . I was ganged up on by 3 to 4 posters telling me my stance was illrelevant .


Yep, that's democracy for ya!


--------

Does anyone know if "marriage equality" now extends to polygamists?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Yes, our republic is definitely being threatened by the overstepping of the supreme court.
They are acting like they are congress, changing the words of the law to suit their wants.
i.e. the word "penalty" in the ACA (Obamacare) is changed to "tax" and subsidies for health care go to citizens of states that have enacted their own exchanges really means if your states doesn't have an exchange you can have a subsidy anyway because that's what we want.
As far as same sex marriage.... the 10th amendment states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. The constitution doesn't address marriage, therefore it's under the states jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Roberts stated in his dissenting opinion on same sex marriage "Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise neither force nor will but merely judgment". By the way, this opinion contradicts what he did one day previously when he voted to support paying health care subsidies for all states in contradiction to what the law actually stated.
Is chief justice Roberts even competent to hold the position he was appointed to?

IMO (not necessarily humble), the SCOTUS is out of control and is acting like they have the power to create laws which is reserved for congress.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Someone needs to pull him aside and remind him that this isn't a democracy but a republic.

A republic is a threat to a democracy methinks.

Could be wrong...



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

I understand very clear from where Scalia is coming from when it comes to the interpretation of the law and the rights of state to dictate what is for the best interesting of their citizens without stepping on other states right.

Whenever the Supreme court rules in favor or against an issue that affects the states it takes away from the states rights to chose what they deem for their best interest, meaning that the democratic process has been dictated by the court into the states.

But what the states still challenge the supreme court?

Congress can not overrule the supreme court decisions, but it can site the law to amend a supreme court decision, and so the states can do the same.




edit on 26-6-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What progressive agenda? Do you continually regurgitate the same propaganda you are fed?

There is no agenda to silence opposition of any kind. That is a common talking point put-out by the right wing propagandists for the idiots that swallow time after time.

Good god man.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Equal protection under the laws. The laws pertaining to obtaining a marriage license. Equal protection.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Let's try to stay on topic. Not much room for theatrics in a thread about written law. Oversimplification won't do any good either.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: JBRiddle

You nailed it. Regardless of stance on gay marriage, everyone who values freedom should find this troubling. Looks like celebration will drown out any rational concern, though.


Do you recognize the hypocrisy and irony in what you posted?

So everyone who values freedom should find it troubling that we are allowing people to have their freedoms?


Everyone who values to keep the gov out of things like marriage should be concerned.......

I find it troubling that the gov is involved at all


and yet state governments ruled against it, which pitted state against state, and somehow you don't find that troubling?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

Let's try to stay on topic. Not much room for theatrics in a thread about written law. Oversimplification won't do any good either.
Theatrics is precisely what Scalia penned in that missive. He was unhappy about the decision, and wrote a flowery story about how we're slowly eroding the balance of America because there weren't enough conservative white people on the benches in the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Can we just have a government tax benefit package/any-other-benefits-conferred-through- marriage for people that have chosen to create a family together, and then strip all the religious ceremonies that those governmental benefits are conferred too of those benefits? Call it joining, bonded, wed, whatever, just not married. Then all the adam and steve arguments fall apart and they'll move the goal posts somewhere even more hilariously backwards.

Then everyone can have their wedding ceremony, everyone can have a family, everyone can show their commitment to whomever they love, everyone gets the gov benefits, and religious folks don't have to marry those people in their holy places and can finally shut up about it. Or start yelling about something else.
edit on 26-6-2015 by framedragged because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

Let's try to stay on topic. Not much room for theatrics in a thread about written law. Oversimplification won't do any good either.


Does that mean you recognized the hypocrisy in what you said? Why are you deflecting from what you posted?

How is allowing people to be free a threat to freedom?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The 10th amendment was meant to address exactly these types of situations.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The whole idea behind the constitution was to explicitly define the very limited powers of the federal government, and leave everything else to the states. The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are the only limitations on states' power.

Not being a power afforded to the federal government, marriage falls in the 'everything else' category and thus is to be defined by the states. That is, until a new amendment is ratified.

So how is it possible that the Supreme Court is usurping this power from the states? Because we are allowing it to happen. When push comes to shove, nothing in the constitution will be upheld unless we demand such.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But the federal government should only protect the rights of people you agree with, right?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: framedragged

OR... we could just have equal protection under the laws (EQUAL, not "similar to", or "just like but a different name") and tell anyone who doesn't like that to get over it.

Oh and no church in America has ever been forced to marry anyone they don't want to. That will not change with this ruling.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

But the federal government should only protect the rights of people you agree with, right?
Actually, The government should protect the rights of ALL people. I don't agree with your stance, but I think you should protected under the constitution to speak that stance.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join