US Supreme court approves same sex marriage

RobertKK

On a vote of 5 to 4 the US supreme court has approved same sex marriage to be allowed in all of the United States.

Otacon

Good

darkpagandeath

Why would the vote against overwhelming public opinion.

ScumLord

Copycats.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why would the vote against overwhelming public opinion.

Because the supreme court is supposed to work on reason and logic, not ignorance and hysteria.

RobertKK

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why would the vote against overwhelming public opinion.

The judges were not voting on public opinion. They have to vote on what they believe the law allows.

Knasher

ScumLord wrote: »

Because the supreme court is supposed to work on reason and logic, not ignorance and hysteria.

Excluding Scalia of course. Without looking it up, I'd put money on him being the descenting vote.

jank

Knasher wrote: »

Excluding Scalia of course. Without looking it up, I'd put money on him being the descenting vote.

4 voted against the measure.

TwoShedsJackson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why would the vote against overwhelming public opinion.

Support has been over 50% for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

The opposition tend to shout the loudest.

Pumpkinseeds

That's great news, but without wanting to pee on anyone's parade, what are the odds that there'll be some legal challenge to the ruling that holds it up in court and prevents implementing the ruling for years? The Americans do love their protracted legal battles.

Knasher

jank wrote: »

4 voted against the measure.

Oh okay, I misunderstood then, I thought the vote was to allow it, and not on whether they should ban it. In that case let me rephrase and say Scalia will be the minority opinion.

RobertKK

Knasher wrote: »

Oh okay, I misunderstood then, I thought the vote was to allow it, and not on whether they should ban it. In that case let me rephrase and say Scalia will be the minority opinion.

In his ruling, he seemed ok with the result in that he said he knows the result of an approval will make a lot of people happy and he was fine with that.

Peregrine

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

That's great news, but without wanting to pee on anyone's parade, what are the odds that there'll be some legal challenge to the ruling that holds it up in court and prevents implementing the ruling for years? The Americans do love their protracted legal battles.

I would have thought that a Supreme Court ruling was, well, supreme. Where would someone challenge the Supreme Court?

Although, I must admit, my understanding of the courts is minimal.

Pumpkinseeds

Nim wrote: »

I would have thought that a Supreme Court ruling was, well, supreme. Where would anyone challenge the Supreme Court?

Your guess would be as good as mine on this one. I just don't envision the religious zealots backing down without another fight. Hopefully the Supreme court ruling will be an end to it.

rainbow kirby

Great news for Pride weekend

Zaph

I'd love to know how 4 of what are supposed to be the finest legal minds in America could find reasons to vote against this.

Gatling

Zaph wrote: »

I'd love to know how 4 of what are supposed to be the finest legal minds in America could find reasons to vote against this.

Southerners ???

Knasher

Nim wrote: »

I would have thought that a Supreme Court ruling was, well, supreme. Where would someone challenge the Supreme Court?

Although, I must admit, my understanding of the courts is minimal.

As I understand it they can challenge it back to the Supreme Court, but it would be up to the court if they examine it, and I'd be very surprised if they did.

Pumpkinseeds

Zaph wrote: »

I'd love to know how 4 of what are supposed to be the finest legal minds in America could find reasons to vote against this.

I could very well be wrong on this, but aren't American judges subject to elections? If that were the case they might be voting based on what their own constituents want, or at least based on what their wealthy campaign donors want. Maybe I'm just too cynical these days but a lot of stuff seems to come down to politics, and not what's right or wrong.

rainbow kirby

Zaph wrote: »

I'd love to know how 4 of what are supposed to be the finest legal minds in America could find reasons to vote against this.

Never underestimate the combination of Jesus and Macchiavellian traits that it takes to get into any kind of office as a Republican...

SharpshooterTom

Obama confirms he is now America's greatest ever president.

All beyond doubt now I guess, its time some people on boards.ie recognised it.

Daith

Zaph wrote: »

I'd love to know how 4 of what are supposed to be the finest legal minds in America could find reasons to vote against this.

In fairness it's whether the Constitution allows it. Not necessarily a vote on same sex marriage itself I guess

Knasher

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I could very well be wrong on this, but aren't American judges subject to elections?

Some lower courts are I think, but the supreme court isn't. They sit for life or until they choose to retire. It is then mostly up the the president to replace them, so often the democrats choose to retire when a democrat is in office, and the republicans do likewise.

Trent Houseboat

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I could very well be wrong on this, but aren't American judges subject to elections? If that were the case they might be voting based on what their own constituents want, or at least based on what their wealthy campaign donors want. Maybe I'm just too cynical these days but a lot of stuff seems to come down to politics, and not what's right or wrong.

For this reason(populist rulings) they're appointed by the president for life.
Their rulings are based on their interpretations of the constitution and it's intent.

Vic_08

Zaph wrote: »

I'd love to know how 4 of what are supposed to be the finest legal minds in America could find reasons to vote against this.

The US supreme court is politically appointed.

El Weirdo

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I could very well be wrong on this, but aren't American judges subject to elections? If that were the case they might be voting based on what their own constituents want, or at least based on what their wealthy campaign donors want. Maybe I'm just too cynical these days but a lot of stuff seems to come down to politics, and not what's right or wrong.

IIRC, Supreme Court judges are Presidential appointments.

Vic_08

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

For this reason(populist rulings) they're appointed by the president for life.
Their rulings are based on their interpretations of the constitution and it's intent.

Or just their personal biases.

FloatingVoter

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I could very well be wrong on this, but aren't American judges subject to elections? If that were the case they might be voting based on what their own constituents want, or at least based on what their wealthy campaign donors want. Maybe I'm just too cynical these days but a lot of stuff seems to come down to politics, and not what's right or wrong.

Supreme Court Justices are poilitical appointees. They're appointed for life so there can be justices there that date back several presidencies. I'm not aware of the current make-up of the court but it would be possible to have a Reagan appointee alongside an Obama appointee. The lifetime term means they are meant to be above the winds of change and free to judge impartially.

Zaph

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I could very well be wrong on this, but aren't American judges subject to elections? If that were the case they might be voting based on what their own constituents want, or at least based on what their wealthy campaign donors want. Maybe I'm just too cynical these days but a lot of stuff seems to come down to politics, and not what's right or wrong.

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president and ratified by Congress and/or the Senate. They're in the job for life, afaik. 2 of those still serving were appointed by Reagan, so unfortunately it's very hard to change the political leanings of the court in a single presidency. Not that their political leanings should come into their judgements, but it clearly does.

FloatingVoter

^ Well, a Reagan Republican would have more in common with modern day Democrats than some of the Tea party brigade. Even though Reagan is idolised as Godlike by the current bunch of Republicans, odds are the man himself were he to run for office now would be considered left of centre in their screwed-up mindset.

Trent Houseboat

Vic_08 wrote: »

Or just their personal biases.

Obviously.

You don't get appointed by the Republicans unless you're going to be sympathetic to their views. Same goes for the Democrats.

As mentioned above Scalia is a Catholic fundamentalist and tends to interpret the constitution in this light.

Yggr of Asgard

Yesterday they decided that "by the state" means something completely different and used fuzzy logic to explain it trampling all over the right of states with strange arguments giving the feds more rights to interpret vague law's. It will lead to loads of problems because now we interpret sentences to things they don't mean. Total nonsense.

However today they trampled over the states rights with a very clear interpretation of the 14th Amendment and that was right. After all being part of the USA means to accept the constitution.

We need reform of SCOTUS because it's too political, it need age limits and it needs to go back to what it is supposed to do and stop trying to fix errors of the congress. Just because that morons can't do things right, does not mean the SCOTUS should add words to laws.