Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[Martinus]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/antonin-scalia-insult-generator?tmp=1&0=8&1=14&2=2

Antonin Scalia insult generator.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Arab countries, Slavic countries, ... that might be a longer, more uphill battle.

lot's of arabs in European cities, plenty of gays being beaten up (or even murdered) by them.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

hijacked by religion at some point in history.

The Ecloga issued by Leo III of course. Geez and you call yourself a lawyer.

The Hammurabi Codex has a few items on marriage, with added religious thingamajigs to add weight to the secular demands.

[Zanza]

lot's of arabs in European cities, plenty of gays being beaten up (or even murdered) by them.

[Kleves]

I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

lot's of arabs in European cities, plenty of gays being beaten up (or even murdered) by them.

it's not because they live in the west they're suddenly addopted western mores. there've been several cases in Brussel regarding homophobic violence with the perpetrators being of a certain background.

[Valmy]

I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

[Malthus]

I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

'Democracy without meaningful constitutional protections for minorities is like three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner'. 

[Martinus]

I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

'Democracy without meaningful constitutional protections for minorities is like three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner'. 

Precisely.

[The Brain]

I am all for gay marriage - I voted for it once, and would again - but I do agree with the dissenters in this case that there's a problem when the Supreme Court can make something constitutional or not just because they happen to personally like it. This happens on both sides, but I don't think it is really anything to celebrate. It is a victory for one side or the other, but I think it is often a loss for democracy. Also, this is a pretty terrible thread title (I don't blame Syt, as it was taken from a terrible NY Times headline).

Well this is why most of the other republican parts of our constitution have been done away with. We used to have an appointed Senate making laws as well.

And you can thank segregation for the way the Supreme Court evolved in this area. Once you established it was the court's job to ensure democratic means were not used to oppress minorities well democracy was going to lose sometimes.

'Democracy without meaningful constitutional protections for minorities is like three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner'. 

*shrug* No one said democracy is necessarily pleasant.

[Ideologue]

Scalia is just a Republican. 9/10, his ideology does the talking.

Kennedy is a Republican and went the other way
Roberts is a Republican and wrote 2 opinions sustaining ACA
Not quite that simple.

Well, I'm not sure how that even addresses what I said about Antonin,Scalia, but I agree regarding Kennedy and Roberts.

[Ideologue]

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day

WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, and Samuel Alito reportedly realized today that they would someday be portrayed as villains in an Oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. "Oh, God, the major social ramifications, the political intrigue, all the important people involved in the case—I'm going to be played by some sinister character actor in a drama with tons of award buzz, aren't I?" said Scalia, joining his fellow dissenting justices in realizing they would be antagonists in a film potentially titled Defense Of Marriage and probably written by Tony Kushner. "I'm going to be portrayed as a closed-minded Neanderthal and the very symbol of backward thinking. And at the end of the movie, when my character realizes he's on the wrong side of history, the audience will feel emotionally fulfilled because the hero attorney, probably played by George fucking Clooney, will have won. Great." While they added that they aren't looking forward to being vilified on screen, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all agreed that the movie would probably be pretty good, and that they could see Paul Dano getting his first Academy Award nomination for his supporting role as a gay rights crusade

The Onion is killing it today.

I can't name a single narrative feature principally about appellate practice. Can anyone? Are there any?

[Martinus]

Ide, I'm slow and its past midnight. Parse that post for me please.

[Admiral Yi]

They made a movie about chadgate.  Might have been for cable.

[Ideologue]

There are few narrative films (ie, non-documentaries) about lawyers arguing before the US Supreme Court or other appellate courts. I assume because it is dramatically and cinematically inert: drafting briefs and oral arguments turning on sophisticated points of law or precential arguments are not the stuff of scalable courtroom drama.

Ok, I did remember there was that one with Kevin Spacey, about vacating a murder verdict.

Anyway, point is, I find it incredibly unlikely someone will try to make a movie that would be as boring as that.