a decision in which they were in the minority?

Even if there is a precedent, is it the kind of conduct befitting the dignity of someone who occupies a very high station in the bureaucracy of our government? Seems shameful to do this to his colleagues, IMHO.

It happens from time to time. It wasn't real common for many decades, even over really harsh or controversial decisions. In the last decade or so it's become more common. Ginsberg led the way. Alito followed. Nobody minded when Ginsburg did it, but she's "one of ours."

http://goodblacknews.org/2014/08/26/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-speaks-out-against-supreme-court-for-forsaking-fight-against-real-racial-problem/
Taken from Huffington Post, based on another story in a law journal. No idea what the website's like.

It's one thing to dissent, of course, but this is openly criticizing the court for reaching what she thinks is a series of stupid, wrong-headed decisions. In another such instance, her criticism was met with anything but rejection by DUers, many long established:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026180901
"I love her." "What a great human being she is." "I adore her."


It's worthwhile that for a while dissents were just dissents. Recently they've become more often blistering and caustic. It's hard to ridicule and insult those you work with and then go and work with them successfully. Just as Tsipras.

fundamental right to heterosexual marriage.

And the marriage right being protected is a civil one, not a religious one. Churches may refuse to marry anyone. The Catholic Church has refused to marry people who were previously married in the Catholic Church and then divorced. Some churches refuse to marry people who are not members of the church.

The Unitarians have been marrying in a religious ceremony LGBT people for a long time now as have some other churches.

Alito just isn't all that bright.

... it's a sad state of affairs ...

graduated law school let alone passed the bar, surely there was $$$ involved somewhere that allowed that to happen lol

that doesn't mean they took any of those lessons to heart.

mostly, they learned the jargon and language conventions as well as the reference points, all of which they use to simply dress up their political bias in the form of legal opinion.

The reason they have a high failure rate is that they let anyone take it even if the 'law school' they went to is unaccredited. Other states limit to ABA accredited law schools. I don't know about NY.

I was judging by the pass/fail rate. I did not know that other states only allow graduates of ABA approved schools to take their exams. Interesting.

The top two law schools in the country. Are you saying they take money to graduate students? That the bar exam administrators take bribes to falsify scores? Please be clear.

Lots and lots of it and the same with passing the bar.

The top school in the Midwest. You may disagree with his decisions but to say he is not smart is just not reality. No progressive attorney would say such a thing but others may differ.

managed to graduate from law school and pass the bar and in another reality I must have said in this thread that Scalia is not smart.

In posts #14 and #38 you say "conservative justices needed help graduating law school". Scalia is one of the conservative justices last time I looked.

That is what your posts says.

I said I was amazed that any of them managed to graduate law school without help I didnt say they "had" help.

Thanks again, Ralph!

Then it was an even better decision than I realized--and it was already pretty damn terrific!

getting married should NOT be based upon merit, education, skill, etc. It's open to one and all!

Fuck this fucking douchebag bigot!!

When something is licensed by the government, it's a privilege that the government can and often does withhold in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. This ruling was landmark in that it proves the government needs to justify its actions when it withholds such privileges and the people can and will hold the government accountable for such arbitrary and capricious actions.

Alito simply proves he's a closet fascist that thumbs his nose at the rule of law and will always side with government authoritarianism as long as it satisfies his partisan ideology. We already knew that anyway.

But he's not merely partisan. Good gawd...I can't even begin to think up the proper term for what he is, politically and religiously.

Batshit crazy will suffice for now.

He cannot get over it.

to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I guess not.....

Sometimes it's good to be a stubborn mule. A lot of Democrats have forgotten the significance of our mascot. We should have been stubborn about Alito. We cooperated on many other things, but Alito should have been one big "No" vote.

aren't ALL citizens entitled to protection under the Constitution?

persecution, inequality and discrimination are lovely and are the hallmarks of a great society. How the F do ignoramuses like this end up on SCOTUS.

I can hear the whining and smell the stink even over the Internet.

Non-living entites (corporations) have constitutional rights
Living entities (humans who happen to be gay) no constitutional rights for them!!


To quote Yoda:

"Mmmmm giant asshole he is...."

that mouthed the word "Not True" when Obama said that the citizens united ruling was bad and it would open the flood gates of bribery and payola in elections in a state of union address.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/supreme-court-justice-sam-alito-doesn

And this right wing hypocrite tool is going to sit on a ruling that will have a major impact on what happens in Unions and teachers in California and unions in general next term--------------hold on folks we have a person that makes over $190,000 a year and sides with oligarchies over 85% of the time and the rest of the time (15%) he's a b**g**t --------------great, justice is not blind with this person

Evil, whiny, slimy, narrow minded creep.

I'm quite sure he would have said the exact same thing about he loving decision, there was no long tradition of allowing blacks to marry whites in 1967.

"So you had to find a strong historical pedigree for this right"

There was no strong historical pedigree for allowing blacks and whites to marry in 1967, exactly the opposite. Either marriage is a deeply rooted right and as such is open to all citizens or it is not and Alito is full of shit.

"I think.”

Obviously you don't Sammy, that's your problem.

2 Supreme Court Justices, both Roman Catholic, from a small geographic
area in Trenton-Lawrenceville NJ.

This is like two baseball players, Hall of Famers and World Series MVPs,
growing up on the same street!

Of course most nuclear physicists of WWII vintage graduated from the
same German secondary physics department, but they had specific
knowledge, not political selection.

I'm just wondering, it never made sense to me.

that this ruling doesn't trample on anyone's rights?

If a man is against marrying a man, he doesn't have to.

If a woman is against marrying a woman, she doesn't have to.

one person's limits are another person's limitations.

Say what you will about Jefferson, but he envisioned a dynamic, breathing, living, government that reshaped itself to suit the needs of the people when it was necessary.

Assholes like Alito want a static government that never changes and is intractable in every way. "rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions of the country." Traditions change, as they do over time, because its the will of the people. Something the conservatives on the SCOUTS abhor.

that he needs to be impeached and removed immediately.

The historical pedigree he is searching for is the ideal of equality before the law. All the marriage equality ruling did was affirm that by allowing all citizens to access the body of civil law pertaining to marriage.

He can continue to listen to the stupidest and most hateful things in the world spewed in his church. Nothing at all has affected his religious freedom in any way.