Personal opinion aside, it's hard to argue with that paragraph.

_________________

The FoxNews.com article comment section is fantastic entertainment.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

That it's hard for you to argue with it has little bearing on those of us capable of dressing ourselves in the morning.

_________________
The Bulls haven't done anything wrong, and they're not going to do anything wrong.

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

So...you got nothing.

Thanks for stopping by to prove my point.

_________________

that cocksmoker put GWB in the white house and now he's talking about democracy.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

I think he's got like nine kids.

This isn't David Souter who wrote that.

_________________

never trust a guy with a lot of kids. can't keep it in his pants.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Are you speaking from experience???

_________________

What should SCOTUS do? How did they overreach?

When did states rights become a big talking point in politics?

1861-1865 look it up.

Actually Supreme Court has been over reaching for a bit. So has the Lesser Fed Courts. The The Supreme Court is not supposed to be making laws at the State level per say.
The Supreme Court will decide Constitutional issues of state law only on a case by case basis, and only by strict Constitutional necessity, independent of state legislators motives, their policy outcomes or its national wisdom So by that which is taken from the Constitution, the Supreme Court for over 50 years has been acting outside of its original intention.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Almost forgot look at 10th amendment, Supreme Court is taking unto itself powers that are not its right as specified.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Here's my thought on this. For an issue that is this important and this divisive, it needs a definitive statement. End Result. Great. But the method in getting there is important. I don't think you can just say "Hey, remember that 150 year-old amendment, well, crazy thing, looks like gay marriage has been legal all this time. Crazy."

For one thing, by defining it by not really defining it, could lead to issues in the future on what is considered marriage. I think they should have just left it to Congress to make a law, specific to this purpose, and clearly defining that marriage is a union of 2 people regardless of their sex so there is no ambiguity.

Otherwise, I heard an excellent opinion from a professor on Milt Rosenberg's program today that said the court should have ruled on the issue that the Court clarified in the '70s that stated that you can not be discriminated based on your sex. So, therefore, if a man can marry a woman then it would discriminating to not allow a woman to also be able to marry a woman. That seems like a clear and concise method to rule rather than trying to establish some kind of grounds of social evolution.

So, in summary, great, if this is how it had to go, great, I'm all in favor. I just think you could have done this differently and avoided potential issues going forward.

_________________
You know me like that.

I agree, and that is what concerns me.

What potential issues do you foresee going forward?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Well, I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm not certain that they have clearly defined who has a right to marry. If they have, I concede.

But, what if I want to marry 2 women because that is what I feel will make me truly happy. Can I do that now? If not, why not?

I think it's just as though the Court has decided to bust the door down when they could have just grasped the handle and opened it.

_________________
You know me like that.

Doc I agree with you. Mormons have a ton of ammunition now on that polygamy thing.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

What I find most disturbing is the trend to nullification of election results this court is doing.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Doc, you are raising the same pertinent questions that Roberts did in his dissent.

_________________

I didn't read that one. I was still laughing at Scalia's.

_________________
You know me like that.

If they want me to be a Supreme Court Justice though, I'd probably do it.

I took a couple business law classes.

_________________
You know me like that.

So you don't believe that the constitution is a living document?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Sure I do. But do you think their interpretation of the 150 year-old legislation was clear and true to the original meaning?

I think it was an overly broad interpretation and more broad than needed for the purpose.

_________________
You know me like that.

Of course it wasn't true to its original meaning. If we are to believe that the constitution is a living document then we also must allow the interpretation of legislation to evolve. People love the 2nd amendment but I don't personally believe that it has been interpreted the way it was originally written.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Chalk it up to poor wording on my part. Original meaning wouldn't allow for "development."

But I think there are other avenues they could have used to get here that would have been more advisable.

_________________
You know me like that.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Didn't want that thought to get buried.

_________________

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Look at you.

Are you sure it was just 3 business law classes? I think that you are being overly modest here.

_________________

I'm never overly modest.

I pride myself on that.

_________________
You know me like that.

BTW, do you disagree with my opinion? You think this ruling was the best way to establish this?

_________________
You know me like that.

No. There has always been debate on states rights going back to the founding of this country. The original constitution (framework of government) called the Articles of Confederation which governed this country throughout the Revolutionary War into Independence could not guarantee to protect individuals rights (Shay's Rebellion). The new framework (The Constitution) called for a number of compromises between large states/small states (Great Compromise) and slave states/free states (3/5 Compromise where slaves were counted as 60% of a person to boost number reps for slave states). Two groups came about during this...the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT AN OVERBEARING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). The Bill of Rights was added to pacify those Anti-Federalists....The issue here is whether or not states should honor a contract between two people that may have been made in a state where such contracts were made. Pay attention man...There was something called the Nullification Crisis championed by a Calhoun that said that if states didn't like a federal law they could Nullify it. This was during the presidency of Andrew Jackson....long dead by 1861. You have a computer...be smarter man....

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner