Supreme Court Justices Say Obergefell a ‘Problem’ for Religious Liberty

[JimG]

Since the Court has agreed that non-marital unions may be designated as marriage, I have no doubt that other variations will follow. Same sex unions between men or between women are allowed, surely there will be accomodation for those attracted to both sexes, so we can expect threesome unions to be accomodated, as well as man-boy unions, eschewing age based discrimination.

The only reason marriage has existed is that humans are composed of two sexes. But a court set on allowing everyone to create their own reality will be mired in unreality.

 

[dochawk]

The fact is that the comments were not in a dissent. That

A dissent from the order not taking a case . . . is a dissent.

But what do I know; I’m just a lawyer . . .

And as I noted above, it may lay out a roadmap for cases on the topic that would be accepted.

 

[Nepperhan]

A dissent from the order not taking a case . . . is a dissent.

But what do I know; I’m just a lawyer . . .

A dissent is a dissent? That what the Jesuits call tautology.

Fact is, Thomas and Alito agreed with the Court not taking the case. So at best it was a concurrence. One way or the other, it was extra and did not add a thing to the consideration of the case by the Court.

 

[dochawk]

*whoosh*

And as I noted above, it may lay out a roadmap for cases on the topic that would be accepted.

 

[Nepperhan]

whoosh

And as I noted above, it may lay out a roadmap for cases on the topic that would be accepted.

Do you think it is at all appropriate for a judge to say: “If I get a case, I’ll vote to reverse precedent.”?

 

[billsherman]

Slavery was contentious at one time but that does not mean both views were morally correct.

First the death penalty, now slavery. Is there anything other than same-sex marriage that you think has objective, universal moral truth?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Slavery was contentious at one time but that does not mean both views were morally correct.

First the death penalty, now slavery. Is there anything other than same-sex marriage that you think has objective, universal moral truth?

I am arguing that slavery, same sex marriage and the death penalty ALL have an objectively true, universally applicable moral answer.

My point about slavery was that merely because contention exists on an issue does NOT entail there is NO correct position.

How did you miss that?

 

[HarryStotle]

dochawk:

whoosh

And as I noted above, it may lay out a roadmap for cases on the topic that would be accepted.

Do you think it is at all appropriate for a judge to say: “If I get a case, I’ll vote to reverse precedent.”?

Depends on the case. Wikipedia reports that the Supreme Court has reversed its own decision over 300 times. That does not include rulings that were abrogated by amendments to the Constitution.

As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases.[1] The longest period between the original decision and the overulling decision is 136 years, for the common law Admiralty cases Minturn v. Maynard , 58 U.S. (17 How.) 476 decision in 1855, overruled by the Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines Inc. , 500 U.S. 603 decision in 1991. The shortest period is 11 months, for the constitutional law Fourth Amendment (re: search and seizure) cases Robbins v. California , 453 U.S. 420 decision in July 1981, overruled by the United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 decision in June 1982. There have been 16 decisions which have simultaneously overruled more than one earlier decision; of these, three have simultaneously overruled four decisions each: the statutory law regarding habeas corpus decision Hensley v. Municipal Court , 411 U.S. 345 (1973), the constitutional law Eleventh Amendment (re: sovereign immunity) decision Edelman v. Jordan , 415 U.S. 651 (1974) and the constitutional law Fifth Amendment (re: double jeopardy) decision Burks v. United States , 437 U.S. 1 (1978).

 

[billsherman]

How did you miss that?

I misread your post. My apologies.

 

[dochawk]

Do you think it is at all appropriate for a judge to say: “If I get a case, I’ll vote to reverse precedent.”?

Uhh . . . that has nothing to do with the issue, and could only come from someone who either hasn’t read or didn’t understand the justice’s comment in an opinion of this type.

That is not what these are.

Again, those who actually follow these understand that these indicate the type of case the justice is interested in hearing.

Sometimes that justice votes the way an ignorant reagor presumes, and sometimes they don’t–that’s whythey wait for an actual dispute where it will be well argued by each side.

 

[Nepperhan]

Depends on the case.

No, the question is if a judge should appropriately write about overturning precedent, not the particulars on if a case should be overturned. Thomas just kind of reiterated his dissent from the previous case. That’s really out of line.

 

[Nepperhan]

Uhh . . . that has nothing to do with the issue, and could only come from someone who either hasn’t read or didn’t understand the justice’s comment in an opinion of this type.

I think it does have to do with the issue. Please hold your snarky insults, though. What Thomas wrote was not an opinion.

Again, those who actually follow these understand that these indicate the type of case the justice is interested in hearing.

More insults. I don’t think Thomas has any business indicating what type of case he is interested in hearing. That’s sort of judicial solicitation.

Sometimes that justice votes the way an ignorant reagor presumes, and sometimes they don’t–that’s why they wait for an actual dispute where it will be well argued by each side.

They wait for an actual dispute because the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions and because of their docket, the court is well-known for adjudging disputes as ‘moot’.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Depends on the case.

No, the question is if a judge should appropriately write about overturning precedent, not the particulars on if a case should be overturned. Thomas just kind of reiterated his dissent from the previous case. That’s really out of line.

It is only out of line if he cannot justify his dissent using a strong and compelling Constitutionally sound argument. If he can, he has every reason to continue presenting his case.

 

[Nepperhan]

It is only out of line if he cannot justify his dissent using a strong and compelling Constitutionally sound argument. If he can, he has every reason to continue presenting his case.

You are mistaking the question of the validity of an argument with the question of the appropriateness of making an argument. The two are vastly different.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It is only out of line if he cannot justify his dissent using a strong and compelling Constitutionally sound argument. If he can, he has every reason to continue presenting his case.

You are mistaking the question of the validity of an argument with the question of the appropriateness of making an argument. The two are vastly different.

The validity of an argument is true at all times and places despite who is making it or the supposed appropriateness. The so-called “appropriateness” depends upon subjective interpretations of when something is appropriate or not. There is great leeway for interpretation.

If Thomas has a sound Constitutional argument then whether you or anyone else thinks it is appropriate is irrelevant.

What is true, just or moral is not a matter of appropriateness. Such matters do not change based upon whims.

 

[Nepperhan]

If Thomas has a sound Constitutional argument then whether you or anyone else thinks it is appropriate is irrelevant.

That’s true only if the Supreme Court is a public discussion forum. Obviously it is not. SCOTUS is a court of limited jurisdiction. That is why the court often dismisses cases as moot or for other procedural reasons.

You’re just wrong. ‘The end justifies the means’ is situational ethics, which is decried by Jesuits.

 

[MikeInVA]

I have Jewish friends who are concerned that their religious freedom will be denied if Christian morality is imposed on them.

What specifically are they afraid of?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If Thomas has a sound Constitutional argument then whether you or anyone else thinks it is appropriate is irrelevant.

That’s true only if the Supreme Court is a public discussion forum. Obviously it is not. SCOTUS is a court of limited jurisdiction. That is why the court often dismisses cases as moot or for other procedural reasons.

You’re just wrong. ‘The end justifies the means’ is situational ethics, which is decried by Jesuits.

I have no idea how you moved from Thomas dissenting on Roe to situational ethics. Perhaps you can go point by point, dot by dot, to logically show how the points tie together, rather than merely asserting I am wrong based upon your own idiosyncratic exploration of pointillism.

 

[billsherman]

What specifically are they afraid of?

Losing same-sex marriage, various protections for LGBTQ people, birth control, abortion, etc.

I’m not Jewish, but those are all things that Reform and Conservative (and some Orthodox, and I’m not sure about Reconstruction) see as things their religion requires as human rights. To have those things taken away, would be a loss of their religious freedom.

The problem with letting one religion’s moral code guide law, is that (inevitably) every other religion will be left out in the cold.

Since the best anyone can do to define an objective moral code is to provide the one they follow, I’d say its best just to keep religious codes entirely out of the equation.

Church and state need to be separate in a multi-religious state.

 

[dochawk]

I think it does have to do with the issue. Please hold your snarky insults, though. What Thomas wrote was not an opinion.

I give up.

You’ve had (at least) two lawyers who have been watching the court for over three decades each explain this.

As I recall Judge Riegle roaring after explainign something twice, and getting yet another “I don’t understand” . . . “No, you don’t want to understand.”

I’m not going to waste any more time trying to show you that the4 sky is blue.