General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason?
The conservative justices incendiary dissents in Obergefell are a shocking betrayal of judicial responsibility
In controversial cases, is the role of jurist to inflame controversy, or quell it?
In Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case which found race-based marriage bands unconstitutional, Chief Justice Earl Warren built a 9-0 consensusjust as hed done years earlier in Brown vs. Board of Education. He knew that a country divided by race ought to be united, if possible, by a Supreme Court mindful of fundamental valueseven if the Court was, as the constitution requires, overturning the will of the majority.
The four dissents in the landmark case on same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, one by each of the conservative justices on todays Supreme Court, take a very different view. With invective and hyperbole, they pour fuel on the fire of the controversy over same-sex marriage. Rather than merely state their views and disagreements, they use heated language to accuse the five-person majority of imperialism, a putsch, and worse.
Thus, the unprecedented calls of elected officials for open revolt against the Supreme Courta shocking display of treasonare now accompanied by calls from within the Court itself that Obergefell is illegitimate, and the Supreme Court itself no longer worthy of full respect.
Ironically, in alleging a new low for the Court, these four justices have brought one into being. Justice Scalia has, as usual, grabbed the spotlight with juvenile taunting usually reserved for the playground. But in fact, all four opinions are shocking.
more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/27/did-dissenting-justices-suggest-treason.html
Lyric
(12,675 posts)Does anyone see them handing over their resignations from this supposedly tyrannical, corrupt court?
No? No takers on that one?
Yeah, I thought so.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Was there a question?
-- Mal
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Scalia's dissent was preposterous. He believes that the constitution must be taken at face value with an understanding of the original intent at the time the amendment was signed into law. Yet in the dissent, he bemoans the fact that the justices are not representative of the evangelical christian and protestant demographic in this country. The first amendment prohibits religion as justification for any legislation. By extension, religious belief has no relevancy in judicial review. Further, the fact that Scalia accepted the nomination is proof of cognitive dissonance. Judicial review is inferred from Article III. It is not specifically stated in the constitution.
-
He must be a completely different person out of his robes. Ginsburg absolutely adores the man. I have so much tremendous respect for her and yet she loves her "Nino." I just don't get it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I have know a bunch of jerks at work who are the nicest people you want to know outside of work. It is weird. I don't take work as seriously as some do. I mean I do the job but don't act so arrogant about it.
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)He's a bona fide asshole.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Do you attend his parties or something. Although I would not want to know him personally it must be interesting to know a Supreme Court justice so well.