Supreme Court to hear arguments on Same Sex Marriage

Users who are viewing this thread

darkcgi

Glorified Maniac
Messages
7,475
Reaction score
448
Tokenz
0.28z
I for one think they should let them
Because truthfully they are going to be with each other just the same
they are not stopping the the act or feelings so who cares
 
  • 63
    Replies
  • 688
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
The supreme court doesn't only look to the constitution to determine if something is constitutional. They also look to precedent which holds as much weight as the constitution itself.
Mmmmmm .... nu uh. Sorry to be picky, but it's vital. Every precedent they look to are Constitution-based decisions made on subjects similar to the case at hand; they are the means the SCOTUS uses to help make the decisions, but the final decisions still have to be firmly based on the Constitution and the Constitution only. The precedents have no value in and of themselves.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Mmmmmm .... nu uh. Sorry to be picky, but it's vital. Every precedent they look to are Constitution-based decisions made on subjects similar to the case at hand; they are the means the SCOTUS uses to help make the decisions, but the final decisions still have to be firmly based on the Constitution and the Constitution only. The precedents have no value in and of themselves.

Precedent is more than just information used to help make decisions. Precedent is the law of the land as much as the constitution. One does not hold more weight than the other.

Hamilton even discussed precedent in the Federalist #78 about how important it is to prevent an arbitrary discretion in the courts.

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.

This is why decisions of the SCOTUS are so important. Prior precedent is almost never overturned by later courts and the only other way to change it is by constitutional amendment.
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
And you are obviously a homophobic bigot.

You trying to "defend" the word marriage is as transparent as it gets.

Your dishonesty is showing again...quite the pattern you have Tim...You continue to paint yourself as the forum liar.

Here is what I said below.

Marriage was meant for man and woman...pretty simple.
I dont care if people are gay....makes no difference to me.
If they want the same rights...then go for it..them give them those same right...but not under the name "marriage"
Call it bonded or whatever.

.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Your dishonesty is showing again...quite the pattern you have Tim...You continue to paint yourself as the forum liar.

Here is what I said below.

So what does it matter to YOU if they are married or it's a civil union? Does the definition of a word matter to you that much?
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
548793_532897790062675_916102311_n.jpg
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Precedent is more than just information used to help make decisions. Precedent is the law of the land as much as the constitution. One does not hold more weight than the other.
Case law can be declared unconstitutional (overturned by a successor court). The Constitution cannot.

This is why decisions of the SCOTUS are so important. Prior precedent is almost never overturned by later courts and the only other way to change it is by constitutional amendment.
And there you've supported my point. You acknowledge that the Constitution trumps case law.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Case law can be declared unconstitutional (overturned by a successor court). The Constitution cannot.

And there you've supported my point. You acknowledge that the Constitution trumps case law.

I know that precedent can be overturn. But it's extremely rare and judges adhere to stare decisis which is a legal principle by which they are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions.

When the court looks at a case before them, they use precedent to help form their position. They don't look to see if the precedent was correctly decided by the previous court, they just use it.
Take a look at the history of the SCOTUS and see how many times decisions have been overturned. You might find a handful at most. There is a reason for that.

Precedent carries the same weight of law as does the constitution.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I doesn't, and you stated as much yourself. It doesn't negate anything else you've said. It's simple fact.

Do you honestly believe that supreme court decisions do not carry the full weight of the law?

Of course they do. As does the constitution.

Both are considered the absolute law of the land. Only the supreme court can overrule precedent which is almost never done and only congress can change the constitution which is almost never done. But unless such changes are made, they both carry the same weight.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Do you honestly believe that supreme court decisions do not carry the full weight of the law?

Of course they do. As does the constitution.

Both are considered the absolute law of the land. Only the supreme court can overrule precedent which is almost never done
Correct, as I said before.

and only congress can change the constitution
Incorrect; it's way more complex than that.

which is almost never done. But unless such changes are made, they both carry the same weight.
SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Their interpretations become case law. Subsequent (there's the word I blanked on earlier
doh2.gif
) interpretations use previous interpretations (precedents) to insure consistency, but the interpretations are interpretations of the Supreme Law of the Land. They only carry the weight of law because they are restatements of the Law. They cannot create law by themselves ... not legally anyway.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
BTW, executive orders follow the same vein. They aren't valid unless they are directly linked to carrying out existing federal law. A president can't create law from whole cloth by issuing executive decisions. SCOTUS can't legally create federal law from whole cloth by issuing opinions.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Incorrect; it's way more complex than that.

Correct, I was keeping it simple.

There are 4 ways to amend the constitution, one of which is where 2/3 rds of the legislator pass a bill that is sent to the state legislators to ratify. This is how most amendments were passed.

My point was that neither are easy paths.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Correct, I was keeping it simple.

There are 4 ways to amend the constitution, one of which is where 2/3 rds of the legislator pass a bill that is sent to the state legislators to ratify. This is how most amendments were passed.

My point was that neither are easy paths.
Which brings up the question: Is our amendment system too complex? It's certainly a factor in legislators trying to creatively interpret what they thought maybe the authors might have meant, rather than just passing an amendment to make things more clear.
 

robdawg1

Active Member
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Which brings up the question: Is our amendment system too complex? It's certainly a factor in legislators trying to creatively interpret what they thought maybe the authors might have meant, rather than just passing an amendment to make things more clear.

i don't think it is too comlex at all, think of the political ramifications of having a simple majority legislative vote to ratify an ammendment, you would have a constitutional overhaul at the end of every major election....I think that the difficulty in ratifying the constitution is what has made it as respected as it is. it sets up a set of rules that everyone has to follow, and only if the overwhelming majority of the land agrees can there be a change made.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Which brings up the question: Is our amendment system too complex? It's certainly a factor in legislators trying to creatively interpret what they thought maybe the authors might have meant, rather than just passing an amendment to make things more clear.

My initial reaction is to say no way, it needs to be difficult to change. But thinking more about it, it might be a good counter balance to the power of the supreme court if it were easier to amend.

Compare the damage done by the supreme court vs the damage done by amendments. When the supreme court makes a bad decision, we are basically stuck with it since amendments are so difficult.
 

robdawg1

Active Member
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I love how the gay marriage post turned into a checks and balances debate....LOL, and it has been easy to read, and very good arguments without certain monkeys throwing bizarre wrenches into it!
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I love how the gay marriage post turned into a checks and balances debate....LOL, and it has been easy to read, and very good arguments without certain monkeys throwing bizarre wrenches into it!

Stick around, Accountable and I were just about to start flinging poo at each other.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top