"Jiggery Poker" of the SCOTUS for ObamaCare

[BvillePoker]

"Jiggery Pokery" must be one of those new fangled judgery terms.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-scalia-obamacare-roberts/index.html

 

[imprimis]

Scalia's dissenting opinion was masterful. He thoroughly sliced and diced John Roberts-Souter's reasoning.

 

[davidallen]

Scalia's dissenting opinion was masterful. He thoroughly sliced and diced John Roberts-Souter's reasoning.

"And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation"

Wasn't that a quote from the Brown v. Board of Education dissent? Surely could have been...

James Madison is ashamed of you.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

"Ask a hippy." It's apparently 1969 again? Scalia and Alito have become judicial punchlines. Poor Scalia is just old, senile fart and has no business deciding anything -- he's obviously addled. And listening to Scalia bitch about judicial activism after Bush v Gore is irony at its finest and leaves astute legal observers dumbfounded.

Alito is possibly the worst supreme court justice this generation has ever seen. I've never seen a more sycophant justice. He's such a chickenshit he expressed concern about lethal pharma being a victim of antitrust efforts in the death penalty cases. In the entire constellation of ethical issues at stake, he was worried about the antitrust protections of big corporations that want to make money killing people. That's where his ethical compass is.

Roberts is a staunch conservative, but he has a formidable legal mind and nobody's gonna get anything over on him. Compare and contrast Roberts and Scalia's dissents. Wow.

 

[AC_Exotic]

"And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation"

Wasn't that a quote from the Brown v. Board of Education dissent? Surely could have been...

James Madison is ashamed of you.

Actually, James Madison is probably ashamed of all of us.

Everybody recognizes that James Madison is the acknowledged father of the United States Constitution. And so James Madison ought to know what’s in it.

In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees, and James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate, and he said, and I’m quoting him: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the [sic] objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison also said “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

 

[davidallen]

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents."

The idea that the rights of a minority group - and certainly homosexuals are a minority in our society - should have their lives dictated by the fetishism of the masses goes directly against what Madison saw as a critical responsibility of government. Gays do not ask for benevolence, only equal treatment under the law. Equality is not charity.
"Justice is the end of Government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The quote Pokewithnoname posted from James Madison has no direct link to the question of gay marriage, but it does underline that his statement that James Madison would be ashamed of us all is correct. It also goes directly to the other recent USSC ruling.

The U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage, gay or otherwise. It speaks directly and specifically to the rights of citizens to own/possess guns/arms. I await the ruling of the USSC (though not holding my breath) that states can not make their own laws abridging those rights, which would be 100% consistent with the ruling in the gay marriage case.

 

[BvillePoker]

I am a staunch supporter of allowing same sex marriages. However I think how we get to that point is just as important as getting there. This was done the wrong way. The COTUS does not address the issue of marriage. The federal government has no place in this either. It should be left to the states to decide, each for themselves.

 

[long-duc-dong]

I am a staunch supporter of allowing same sex marriages. However I think how we get to that point is just as important as getting there. This was done the wrong way. The COTUS does not address the issue of marriage. The federal government has no place in this either. It should be left to the states to decide, each for themselves.

Not a "staunch supporter" but feel the same way as the rest of your post. I'm indifferent on the gay marriage issue. To each his own. Who am I to judge.