The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#52
#52
gcbvol said:
I believe in laughter, so any time I can contribute to that end is a good thing.

Honestly, this current topic is very personal and emotional for me (quite a bit more than I anticipated). I'll try to keep it light but apologize in advance if I come across testy down the line.
Click to expand...

Don't fret. GV is a fan of your testi ness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#55
#55
volprof said:
I've never argued any such thing, so I assume you're referring to others.

However, smoking marijuana one can reasonably say is a lifestyle choice.

Being gay and having jackwagons like half the posters on this site constantly mock and ridicule you, however, one can say is not reasonably a lifestyle choice.

But perhaps nearly 10 percent of our populace is masochist.
Click to expand...

Be honest, you wrote this whole post just so you could say "masochist."
 
#57
#57
volprof said:
Gay marriage is not a state issue. It's a Civil Rights issue. And I'm glad the USSC is taking it up. I hope they make the right (and only) decision.

Whether you think it a choice or a natural condition, it doesn't matter.

It's not up to individual citizens of states to decide the rights of other citizens. It's not up to individual citizens to decide things that don't concern them. Your morality you can have. I'm sure God or whoever will remember you were against it, and you'll be good to go.

40 years from now this will probably make sense to nearly everyone, but, for the time being, just trust me.
Click to expand...

Even though I agree with you, you're a condescending prick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#60
#60
Biopsyman said:
Alito schooled the lawyer today that was for gay rights . Simply had no anwer to insightful questions
Click to expand...
The lawyer also wanted to use the argument that states would have the right to determine a marriage between 4 people isn't healthy. So which is it: states have the ability to define marriage or they don't?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
Biopsyman said:
Alito schooled the lawyer today that was for gay rights . Simply had no anwer to insightful questions
Click to expand...

The attorney certainly wasn't prepared for those questions. And if you thought that was rough, the attorney for the states got hammered by multiple justices. I don't understand why he used an argument that has failed on several previous occasions.

Everything considered it likely points to a 5-4 decision either way (outside chance of 6-3 if it goes marriage equality).
 
#64
#64
gcbvol said:
Chief Justice Roberts. Again, it's an outside chance but there is some speculation that he could side that way.
Click to expand...

Kennedy would be the swing vote so the most it could be is 5-4:Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito on one side, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg on the other with Kennedy in the middle.
 
#65
#65
Unless of course it could be 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the left.
 
#66
#66
davethevol said:
The lawyer also wanted to use the argument that states would have the right to determine a marriage between 4 people isn't healthy. So which is it: states have the ability to define marriage or they don't?
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem like a relevant question. States have defined marriage as being between two people. Why should we discriminate against the two people?

But honestly, I didn't see problem with 4 people being married.
 
#68
#68
davethevol said:
The lawyer also wanted to use the argument that states would have the right to determine a marriage between 4 people isn't healthy. So which is it: states have the ability to define marriage or they don't?
Click to expand...

Both Scalia and Alito pointed out how that argument doesn't make any sense.
 
#69
#69
gcbvol said:
The attorney certainly wasn't prepared for those questions. And if you thought that was rough, the attorney for the states got hammered by multiple justices. I don't understand why he used an argument that has failed on several previous occasions.

Everything considered it likely points to a 5-4 decision either way (outside chance of 6-3 if it goes marriage equality).
Click to expand...

I don't think the attorney for the states got hammered at all. The point he started out making Kagan interrupted and didn't even address his point but tried to change what he was arguing and then Breyer spoke up and brought up another argument that he wasn't making and then Mr. Bursch pointed out to the two idiots that he wasn't making those arguments.
 
#71
#71
Sandvol said:
I don't think the attorney for the states got hammered at all. The point he started out making Kagan interrupted and didn't even address his point but tried to change what he was arguing and then Breyer spoke up and brought up another argument that he wasn't making and then Mr. Bursch pointed out to the two idiots that he wasn't making those arguments.
Click to expand...

His whole argument was based upon an "idea" that some of the justices didn't find agreeable. The whole premise is that marriage is an institution of procreation, and that argument has failed over and over. So he argues that if same-sex marriages are allowed then heterosexuals will no longer view marriage as an instrument to produce and raise children and therefore lead to less marriages producing children and/or more single parent homes. He has no evidence to support that or any way to prove that will happen, thus it is nothing more than an idea.

On top of that the justices (notably Kennedy) had issues with the inference that same-sex couples did not have the same concern or purpose in loving and raising children:

"Under your view, it would be very difficult for same-sex couples to adopt some of these children... I think the argument cuts quite against you."
Click to expand...

So his arguments had multiple issues the justices pointed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
volprof said:
Gay marriage is not a state issue. It's a Civil Rights issue. And I'm glad the USSC is taking it up. I hope they make the right (and only) decision.

Whether you think it a choice or a natural condition, it doesn't matter.

It's not up to individual citizens of states to decide the rights of other citizens. It's not up to individual citizens to decide things that don't concern them. Your morality you can have. I'm sure God or whoever will remember you were against it, and you'll be good to go.

40 years from now this will probably make sense to nearly everyone, but, for the time being, just trust me.
Click to expand...

I trusted my mom when she said stewed tomatoes and onions were good too. That didn't turn out well. That's been over 50 years ago. I think I will just have my own opinion.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top