tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post8812081028545280647..comments2024-03-18T22:42:43.508-04:00Comments on Social Security News: DOMA Found UnconstitutionalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-54707856713994262822013-06-28T17:16:35.433-04:002013-06-28T17:16:35.433-04:00An important reminder: popular sentiment, even pop...An important reminder: popular sentiment, even popular sentiment codified into some State law, is no legal basis for denial of basic civil rights.<br /><br />See, e.g., the Civil Rights movement in the American South circa 1940-1970.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-43674733983179672152013-06-27T12:00:56.499-04:002013-06-27T12:00:56.499-04:00An important reminder: The voters in California vo...An important reminder: The voters in California voted to support traditional marriage. California politicians rejected the will of the majority in addressing this single issue. One of the reasons why California politicians are held in such low regard in any poll. Why they are reelected is another discussion...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-34273339024067339862013-06-27T10:26:55.903-04:002013-06-27T10:26:55.903-04:00"left up to the States"
ahh yes, let..."left up to the States"<br /><br />ahh yes, let's leave the giving and withholding of fundamental civil rights for a disadvantaged class of people to the States, those bastions of wisdom and rational thought with no history whatsoever of systematic oppression of disadvantaged groups until being forced into line by the federal government. <br /><br />The Court hasn't been presented with the ultimate question yet, but go ahead and let that DC circuit opinion (penned by a very conservative judge) serve as the writing on the wall. <br /><br />The argument for homosexuals being some sort of protected class is strong--just read that DC opinion to see what it looks like. If that class gets any type of heightened scrutiny, there simply is a lack of good (i.e. non-Christianity based) reasons for the government to disallow gay marriage and meet that heightened scrutiny. It's over, go home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-8084789587881591122013-06-26T18:08:25.612-04:002013-06-26T18:08:25.612-04:00For those "original intenters" who think...For those "original intenters" who think this is some wild distortion of the constitution, here's an analogy: Imagine in 1810 that the Federal government paid some sort of benefit to widows of revolutionary war veterans. Imagine that Congress enacted a law stating that it was the official policy of the United States that miscegenation was immoral, and the Federal government would refuse to recognize widows of veterans if they were of a different race, even if they widow was legally married to the veteran pursuant to state law. <br />What might the Marshall Court have done with a challenge to the Federal law? I don't know, but it's certainly a reasonable possibility that the Marshall court would have declared the law unconstitutional, even under constitutional analysis at the time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-91658061643853318892013-06-26T17:10:14.750-04:002013-06-26T17:10:14.750-04:00I think Washington Jefferson and Franklin would ha...I think Washington Jefferson and Franklin would have said, " well look at that, it still works."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-86467023868961732262013-06-26T16:53:51.428-04:002013-06-26T16:53:51.428-04:00"I cannot help but wonder what Washington, Je..."I cannot help but wonder what Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. would think about this understanding of constitutional rights."<br /><br />Chances are, they would have said that the Federal government had no business defining marriage. It should have been left up to the states. If the states choose to recognize same-sex marriage, so be it. Then there's the little matter of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-51114048355897369802013-06-26T14:58:59.650-04:002013-06-26T14:58:59.650-04:009 Scalias probably means the end of Social Securit...9 Scalias probably means the end of Social Security disability. After all, he is a major proponent of "original intent" and disability wasn't in the original Social Security Act. Or, it might mean the end of Social Security itself since it wasn't in the original Constitution...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-41776160585322071222013-06-26T14:58:04.899-04:002013-06-26T14:58:04.899-04:00I cannot help but wonder what Washington, Jefferso...I cannot help but wonder what Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. would think about this understanding of constitutional rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-85955770461402017212013-06-26T14:35:14.893-04:002013-06-26T14:35:14.893-04:00To bad we don't have 9 Scalias on the court.To bad we don't have 9 Scalias on the court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com