|
Ok before we start discussing on this thread I promise to remain civil and will not throw insults and try not to post something in an offensive tone and will read all posts twice before posting. I hope everyone else will do the same.
Ok the relevant news this week is that Supreme court justice David Souter is stepping down. Souter has been known as a very conservative, and the next appointee is not known. But what is known is one of the first topics to be brought before the new supreme court justice is a same-sex union legislation act. The reports say with new Hampshire expected to be the 5th state to pass same-sex marrriage between now and the fall and some 40 states who have constitutional ban on same-sex marriage the issue is up for debate. The bill is thought to be a ban on all constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Basicaly saying we won't necessarily legalize it but with 60% of people under 35 approving same-sex marriage and 81% of under 25, it's only a matter of time. Currently 40% of the democratic party disapproves of same-sex legislation but all agree that it seems to be an inevitability as time goes on.
Ok now I would like to hear everyones thoughts.
Souter has actually been a liberal, even though he was appointed by a Republican. The gridlock on the court isn't going to change anytime soon.
|
First of all, Souter is one of the more reliably liberal justices, not a conservative, as you have pointed out. If the issue at hand is gay rights, it's worth mentioning that Souter sided with the majority on Lawrence vs Texas, the most significant gay rights case to reach the Supreme Court in recent years. Replacing one gay rights supporter with another will have no impact on the current makeup of the Court.
That said, I heartily disagree that a court case involving gay marriage is likely to be on the Supreme Court's docket any time soon. As Barney Frank pointed out, gay marriage supporters simply do not have the support on the Supreme Court we would need to push the issue and get a favorable decision. Likewise, it's not likely a gay marriage ban is likely to be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide anytime soon either. Legal precedent has established that marital law is a matter for the states to decide, so they would be unlikely to hear a case challenging state law in the states where gay marriage is legal. The only step that could be taken nationally to oppose gay marriage would be a constitutional amendment, which would never pass the current congress, and even if it did, the Supreme Court could not challenge it if it were to pass.
|
|
First of all, Souter is one of the more reliably liberal justices, not a conservative, as you have pointed out. If the issue at hand is gay rights, it's worth mentioning that Souter sided with the majority on Lawrence vs Texas, the most significant gay rights case to reach the Supreme Court in recent years. Replacing one gay rights supporter with another will have no impact on the current makeup of the Court.
That said, I heartily disagree that a court case involving gay marriage is likely to be on the Supreme Court's docket any time soon. As Barney Frank pointed out, gay marriage supporters simply do not have the support on the Supreme Court we would need to push the issue and get a favorable decision. Likewise, it's not likely a gay marriage ban is likely to be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide anytime soon either. Legal precedent has established that marital law is a matter for the states to decide, so they would be unlikely to hear a case challenging state law in the states where gay marriage is legal. The only step that could be taken nationally to oppose gay marriage would be a constitutional amendment, which would never pass the current congress, and even if it did, the Supreme Court could not challenge it if it were to pass.
Was quoting a cnn representative of what was likely to be brought up is all.
|
I've heard Souter described as both a liberal and a conservative, but more often as a liberal. I will prefer to see him replaced with a judge who will not be what they call activist, or legislating from the bench - that's what Congress is for. The court is there to interpret the law. This is of course, a fine line to walk, but I think most judges do as good a job as possible. I'd also rather not see a judge who cites laws from foreign countries in making his own decisions. No offense to those countries, but I don't vote there, and they don't vote here.
I also think they should nominate the most qualified person they can find - regardless of race, gender, etc. However, I believe they will be looking for either (1) a minority female, (2) a female, (3) a minority, in that order of preference and despite and qualifications or lack thereof. I've heard that some Congressmen commented that they should look beyond the Federal Appelate Courts or perhaps even look for someone who may not have been a judge or lawyer. That would be a mistake in my opinion. Although if they go for the whole "non-lawyer" thing I may throw my hat in the ring - I think undead qualifies as a minority.
Regarding the specific subject of gay marraige - I believe that all couples should be given the same rights and priveleges under the law, no matter what. However, I think that's as far as it should go. I don't believe the government should define the word "marraige" either way - that is not their job. In fact, if they were to do so, I'd challenge it as going against free speech.
|
|
So your saying that a gay marriage act couldn't come down through the supreme court. I know for a fact that it happened exactly that way in Canada and South Africa.
It's an eventual possibility, although not any time soon. Saying "it happened in country A, therefore it will happen in country B" ignores the fact that the judicial systems, constitutions, and laws are different in those countries. What one country's high court does is not a predictor of what any other country's high court will do.
|
Regarding the specific subject of gay marraige - I believe that all couples should be given the same rights and priveleges under the law, no matter what. However, I think that's as far as it should go. I don't believe the government should define the word "marraige" either way - that is not their job. In fact, if they were to do so, I'd challenge it as going against free speech.
I honestly do not understand your point in that last bit. The government has already defined marriage, for its own purposes. This would be no different. If you personally didn't want to call gay marriage marriage, the government couldn't force you to. If you mean something else, I'm missing it.
|
|
I'll add that I would expect a former constitutional law professor like Obama to pick a qualified candidate. He could surprise and disappoint me, but my hunch is that while his appointee is likely to be liberal or liberal-moderate, that appointee is likely to have loads of judicial experience. (Again, that's just my hunch based on what I've seen from the president - I certainly can't predict the future).
I don't think he's going to appoint his secretary or anything *cough*.
I don't think he's going to appoint his secretary or anything *cough*.
No but there is talk he might appoint his buddy Gov. Deval Patrick, my state's governor. A long shot, but I have my fingers crossed. Not that our Lt. Gov. is any great shakes either ...
|
|
My hope is that the new justice will have more respect for personal property rights than Justice Souter did.
|
|
First of all, Souter is one of the more reliably liberal justices, not a conservative, as you have pointed out. If the issue at hand is gay rights, it's worth mentioning that Souter sided with the majority on Lawrence vs Texas, the most significant gay rights case to reach the Supreme Court in recent years. Replacing one gay rights supporter with another will have no impact on the current makeup of the Court.
That said, I heartily disagree that a court case involving gay marriage is likely to be on the Supreme Court's docket any time soon. As Barney Frank pointed out, gay marriage supporters simply do not have the support on the Supreme Court we would need to push the issue and get a favorable decision. Likewise, it's not likely a gay marriage ban is likely to be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide anytime soon either. Legal precedent has established that marital law is a matter for the states to decide, so they would be unlikely to hear a case challenging state law in the states where gay marriage is legal. The only step that could be taken nationally to oppose gay marriage would be a constitutional amendment, which would never pass the current congress, and even if it did, the Supreme Court could not challenge it if it were to pass.
Ok here is what the plan is. They plan to overturn DOMA. With the overturning of DOMA all constitutional bans on sma sex marriage become null. And for all of those who don't know what Doma is here's a quick run down.
In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin (name later changed to Baehr v. Miike), the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage that the state might legalize it, and that eventually other states would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. The Defense of Marriage Act is designed specifically to "quarantine" same-sex marriage and prevent states from being required to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples in other states.
The Defense of Marriage Act was authored by then Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex." Barr has since apologized for his sponsorship of the DOMA.
The legislative history of the bill asserts authority to enact the law under Article IV Sec. 1, which grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of such full faith and credit. Proponents made clear their purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level and to permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex unions concluded in another state. Opponents variously question whether the power asserted extends so far as to permit non-recognition altogether, argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague by leaving out essential details, assert a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, or some combination of the three.
Although Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law during his re-election campaign in 1996 and opposed same-sex marriage, he did not mention the law (or the controversy surrounding it) in his 2004 memoir, My Life.
In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."
Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA. As of May 2009, President Barack Obama no longer explicitly supported full repeal of the DOMA.
I dislike judges who use the bench to force their personal agendas on millions of citizens...
That said, I think our country would be best served with a balanced mix of conservative, liberal, and centrist SC Justices. Of course, no one knows how a judge will behave until s/he is confirmed for lifetime on the bench...
|
|
Repealing DOMA would not overturn state constitutions that bar same-sex marriage, nor would it require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. DOMA has no effect on those things one way or the other.
What DOMA does is prevent the federal government from recognizing any legal benefit to same sex couples granted by the states. DOMA flies in the face of states' rights by limiting their ability to define marriage as they see fit, which has previously been designated a prerogative of the states.
DOMA also forces me to pay approximately $1000 more in federal taxes per year than I would have to if it was repealed. Hooray for higher taxes.
|
|
While I support homosexual couples having the same rights as straight couples, I do not want those rights to come from the Supreme Court. I know this will sound weird, but as a Constitutional conservative, I do not believe that is the appropriate way for such a thing to come about. The Supreme Court's purpose is to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. Therefore, if a case were to come before the Supreme Court challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, then they are supposed to say yes it is Constitutional or no it is not. That is all, they do not have the Constitutional authority to go beyond that.
If you read the decision of Marbury V. Madison, the decision that defined judicial review, John Jay was very clear in stating that the court cannot force the government to take any action, they can only decide if the action taken was okay under the Constitution. Over the past half century though, members of the court have taken it upon themselves to use the bench to force through their own agendas. This has been true of both the left and the right and explains why we see so many 5-4 decisions from the court these days. Honestly, if I were the president I would only have two questions for a prospective justice, have you read the Constitution and will you use it to guide your decisions? If they answer yes to those two questions, then in my book they are qualified, regardless of their position on hot button topics.
Actually, I meant like this.
That's really beautiful and insightful.
Crap! now I'm afraid to go out in the rain... thanks Erik.
Eh, worst thing about being a Friend of Dorothy is the jerks who bend over backwards to make your life miserable, usually through the offices of the state but vile slander and free enterprise violence are options. It's not that bad except for them.