• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

MysteryMen said:
This on the other hand is absurd

Click to expand...

02abcea19726f2a785a9d9710fd40f61.jpg
 
I really don't see how the decision erodes religious liberty. Nobody is being forced into a gay marriage. No church is forced to perform them.
 
Texas AG Paxton is totally a scumbag. Pretty hilarious that he even got elected.
 
Best comments come from Fox News Facebook

"this looks like it’s the end for our American freedoms. They force gays on the church, take God out of schools, take guns away from law-abiding citizens, censor conservatives and prosecute police officers who are just doing their job. Won’t be long now until we reach Obama’s communist utopia."

"The United States Supreme Court has just descended what is left of our Republic into hell. Pandora's Box has now been opened wide and every perversion known to man will now proclaim the right to practice any abomination. God have mercy on the United States of America."

"Very sad day indeed. Something big is on the horizon for sure. So we need to read our bibles and pray."

"What a shame. If the Supreme Court would have originally defined marriage, they might have the right to change the definition. God defined marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court had NO RIGHT."
 
bym051d said:
He has the credential that matters in Texas.
Click to expand...

He isn't as big a cheese as he thinks and he will not be able to contain various judges and clerks within his state that are already issuing licenses and performing ceremonies. I don't understand his kind of thinking. He lost, he knew he was going to lose since the DOMA decision and had ample time to prep, and this is his response? You want to tell the SCOTUS to go fuck itself then pick a better issue than gay frigging marriage.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It doesn't. The religious arguments make no sense.
Click to expand...

There actually are some decent religious arguments and the Government acknowledged them at oral argument.

For example, if a religious university offers married couples housing, they may now be required to offer that same housing to married same-sex couples despite their religious objections or risk losing their federal funds. I doubt at this point that the government would pursue taking away federal funding for something like that, but the government stated that they could legally do that if the Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

I think there are going to be some very interesting and potentially messy intersections in the law now that the court has established a fundamental right to same-sex marriage while in recent years also significantly strengthening religious protections
 
EatLeadCommie said:
On the contrary. It is pretty clear that he still has them. The guy has been solid as a rock for years and still has the capacity for wit and reasoned thinking well beyond his peers. It may as well be Scalia and the Eight Dwarves. Nobody on his side or the left even approaches him. Ruth might be his closest mental counterpart on the left, which isn't saying much, but could explain their bond.
Click to expand...

Translation: ELC thinks snark and vitriol are amusing as long as directed at liberals.

Scalia is a smart guy. His dissents, and sometimes his majority opinions, are frankly unprofessional. It is possible and desirable to disagree without being disagreeable. His habit of heaping derision on his opponents - who are every bit as learned and smart as he is - just adds to the downward spiral of the Court's reputation. I get that in right-wing circles being smart isn't enough, you have to be willing to insult liberals, say "politically incorrect" things to annoy liberals, accuse liberals of being traitors who want to destroy America, and so forth and so on. It's bad enough that we have to tolerate that behavior in blowhard politicians, but it is downright disgraceful coming from a Supreme Court justice.
 
Deacon923 said:
Translation: ELC thinks snark and vitriol are amusing as long as directed at liberals.

Scalia is a smart guy. His dissents, and sometimes his majority opinions, are frankly unprofessional. It is possible and desirable to disagree without being disagreeable. His habit of heaping derision on his opponents - who are every bit as learned and smart as he is - just adds to the downward spiral of the Court's reputation. I get that in right-wing circles being smart isn't enough, you have to be willing to insult liberals, say "politically incorrect" things to annoy liberals, accuse liberals of being traitors who want to destroy America, and so forth and so on. It's bad enough that we have to tolerate that behavior in blowhard politicians, but it is downright disgraceful coming from a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...

...and the GOP darlings want to make these people elected officials. Just imagine how much worse it would be.
 
Scalia is a dickhead, but he's entertaining and his DGAF mentality isn't shocking.
 
Deacon923 said:
Translation: ELC thinks snark and vitriol are amusing as long as directed at liberals.

Scalia is a smart guy. His dissents, and sometimes his majority opinions, are frankly unprofessional. It is possible and desirable to disagree without being disagreeable. His habit of heaping derision on his opponents - who are every bit as learned and smart as he is - just adds to the downward spiral of the Court's reputation. I get that in right-wing circles being smart isn't enough, you have to be willing to insult liberals, say "politically incorrect" things to annoy liberals, accuse liberals of being traitors who want to destroy America, and so forth and so on. It's bad enough that we have to tolerate that behavior in blowhard politicians, but it is downright disgraceful coming from a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....

TownieDeac said:
my point was that historians aren't going to be going back and looking at the footnote in history that will be scalia, on the wrong side of almost everything

it's the roberts court, it has presided over some absolutely enormous historical decisions

you are most certainly a dolt
Click to expand...
 
The first couple to get married in Dallas has been together for 55 years:

first-dalco-license.jpg


Link
 
MysteryMen said:
There actually are some decent religious arguments and the Government acknowledged them at oral argument.

For example, if a religious university offers married couples housing, they may now be required to offer that same housing to married same-sex couples despite their religious objections or risk losing their federal funds. I doubt at this point that the government would pursue taking away federal funding for something like that, but the government stated that they could legally do that if the Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

I think there are going to be some very interesting and potentially messy intersections in the law now that the court has established a fundamental right to same-sex marriage while in recent years also significantly strengthening religious protections
Click to expand...

If you don't want to treat everyone equally, don't accept federal funds. Seems easy to me.

If you want federal cash, you have to play by federal rules.
 
Deacon923 said:
Translation: ELC thinks snark and vitriol are amusing as long as directed at liberals.

Scalia is a smart guy. His dissents, and sometimes his majority opinions, are frankly unprofessional. It is possible and desirable to disagree without being disagreeable. His habit of heaping derision on his opponents - who are every bit as learned and smart as he is - just adds to the downward spiral of the Court's reputation. I get that in right-wing circles being smart isn't enough, you have to be willing to insult liberals, say "politically incorrect" things to annoy liberals, accuse liberals of being traitors who want to destroy America, and so forth and so on. It's bad enough that we have to tolerate that behavior in blowhard politicians, but it is downright disgraceful coming from a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...

It is not who he directs his language toward, but how he articulates it. If the left had anybody who could approach the prose of Scalia, I would appreciate it too, even if I disagreed with its content. Yes, there are issues with his tone and the professionalism (or lack thereof) involved, but the more colorful stuff like today's opinion was in a rider to the dissenting opinion. He himself even acknowledges today that stuff like that should be confined to where he puts it (rather than in precedent setting opinions). And his off-putting brand of humor does serve the purpose of reinforcing his opinion. He doesn't just throw it out there for no reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top