It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: warpig69
Here is a quot from Scalia in his dissent that I found interesting. Basically he is saying the body of Judges is not a representation of the Union as a whole. Although true, the Judges are not elected to represent the nation, they are there to interpret law. But, what it sounds like to me is he thinks the Supreme Court wields too much power. Or am I just reading to much into what he said?
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Does that automatically make him wrong?
You can take a pot shot, but can you explain where his assessment falls short?
originally posted by: Phallacy
I'm going to go with "no, it's not a threat to Democracy...it's the counterbalance to mob rule that the Founders were intended."
The founders left us with mainly a Republic, with elements of a Democracy. They balance each other out. There is a reason the Founders didn't just copy-paste Athenian Democracy.
originally posted by: CB328
That being said, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, so he's very wrong. And since it's unconstitutional to ban it he's doubly wrong.
(You mean partners at the same time?)
Is it unconstitutional to limit the number of marriage partners a person can have or set a minimum age in marriage?
Really? No legal rights (survivorship not being the least) conferred by engaging in a legal contract?
My thoughts would be to removed marriage from government period
originally posted by: Xtrozero
My thoughts would be to removed marriage from government period.
originally posted by: CB328
...children aren't really citizens in the normal sense, and as such don't have the same rights the rest of us do IMO.