Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,961 posts)
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 08:03 AM Apr 2015

Ruth Bader Ginsburg eviscerates same-sex marriage opponents in court


At 82, the supreme court justice cut through the question of gay marriage’s constitutionality in a way that seemed to move even her most conservative peers



......

“Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition,” said Ginsburg when Justices Roberts and Kennedy began to fret about whether the court had a right to challenge centuries of tradition.

“Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female,” she explained. “That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down … Would that be a choice that state should (still) be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?”

“No,” replied John Bursch, the somewhat chastised lawyer for the states who are seeking to preserve their ban on gay marriage.

....................

In the end, her bottom line – rejecting the notion that extending marriage rights would somehow weaken the institution – was persuasive enough that even chief justice Roberts appeared sympathetic.

“All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available,” said Ginsburg. “So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.”






69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ruth Bader Ginsburg eviscerates same-sex marriage opponents in court (Original Post) kpete Apr 2015 OP
National treasure, icon, hero merrily Apr 2015 #1
I smiled and thought "Founding Mother". jwirr Apr 2015 #15
She certainly is. hifiguy Apr 2015 #42
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Phlem Apr 2015 #61
Rational thought... Ohio Joe Apr 2015 #2
Sly old girl. Always pretends to be napping and then SNAP !! Monk06 Apr 2015 #3
She had recently been in the hospital when that SOTU camera got her. merrily Apr 2015 #17
Just a bit of literary licence. The right likes to constantly dwell on her age. They lust for her Monk06 Apr 2015 #23
I have no problem with the license or the taking of it. Just adding info for those who may have merrily Apr 2015 #27
Freepers use that incident, if you can call it that, to advocate for Ginsburg's retirement and Monk06 Apr 2015 #48
They want her to retire so Obama can appoint another Justice? merrily Apr 2015 #51
The RW hopes they get their way with the next SC pick especially with a RW congress and what they Monk06 Apr 2015 #62
Ater a second, I got that. My problem is I read and post only at DU, yet merrily Apr 2015 #63
Be thankful Cruz has his eyes on the GOP nomination. He would is more than qualified professionally Monk06 Apr 2015 #64
That's the mistake people make about Clarence Thomas. Hoppy Apr 2015 #25
Ruckus is gonna have to wake up first. hifiguy Apr 2015 #43
"She managed to raise her head from her usual drunken stupor" Midnight Writer Apr 2015 #66
I remember that one. Freepers accepted that slander as eye witness testimony. Endlessly repeated. Monk06 Apr 2015 #69
This is one reason ... surrealAmerican Apr 2015 #4
link? diddlysquat Apr 2015 #5
The text and picture look likethey came from this article at The Guardian (link within) Cerridwen Apr 2015 #8
did she drop the mic and walk away? notadmblnd Apr 2015 #6
Another great thing about her: no showboating. merrily Apr 2015 #18
You don't need to show off hifiguy Apr 2015 #45
Scalia is smart. Deceptive, but smart. For a justice, he tries too hard to draw attention merrily Apr 2015 #52
He forgets that wives had no rights.Not even inheritance or child custody bjobotts Apr 2015 #56
Wives used to be property.Is there any sex gays have that heteros don't bjobotts Apr 2015 #57
This attempt to define marriage also tries to define sex in marriage. bjobotts Apr 2015 #58
Oh, I doubt he forgets. merrily Apr 2015 #59
yes, then she made a peace sign with her fingers, kissed it, held it up and said "Peace Out." GreatGazoo Apr 2015 #21
It's gonna suck when she retires. nt City Lights Apr 2015 #7
Tell me about it. Breyer and Kagan joined the (R) clowns on the Medicaid part of the ACA decision. merrily Apr 2015 #30
She's gonna die in that job. And I don't mean that it a bad way. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #53
RBG! The sharpest mind on the SC bench. Greybnk48 Apr 2015 #9
No question. Runs circles around the rest of the court. And Clarence Thomas? Not even LuckyLib Apr 2015 #50
It is clear that four of the justices are driven totally by ideology. olegramps Apr 2015 #10
BINGO! gregcrawford Apr 2015 #13
Exactly ,,,How can there be a case ,,,, Cryptoad Apr 2015 #26
Because, under traditional analysism, the state only has to have a rational basis Ms. Toad Apr 2015 #36
, blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #11
Our entire research budget should go toward preserving her health and quality of life Orrex Apr 2015 #12
Agreed. merrily Apr 2015 #19
I love me some Notorious RBG! eggplant Apr 2015 #14
Love it. merrily Apr 2015 #20
One side has Ruth Bader Ginsburg mythology Apr 2015 #16
The other side has that lying waste of skin, Scalia, yet he and Ginsburg love each other's company. merrily Apr 2015 #22
people with like magintudes of intelligence almost always enjoy each other's mind. Cryptoad Apr 2015 #24
Ginsburg and Scalia have like magnitudes of intelligence? rurallib Apr 2015 #29
close Cryptoad Apr 2015 #31
That may depend on what they choose to discuss. merrily Apr 2015 #33
Clarence Thomas is known to just sit and stare. 951-Riverside Apr 2015 #28
Clarence Thomas is not a fool. Unvanguard Apr 2015 #60
Surprised Bursch answered that way, malthaussen Apr 2015 #32
Even Scalia has praised Justice Ginsburg.... DonViejo Apr 2015 #34
This q would never be raised had we continued to spooky3 Apr 2015 #35
RBG is one of my heros Gothmog Apr 2015 #37
I like what Justice Roberts said: ChisolmTrailDem Apr 2015 #38
according to this article, Roberts said that. spooky3 Apr 2015 #39
Oh jeez, I have no idea how I badded that bad! I've edited my post. Thanks, spooky3. nt ChisolmTrailDem Apr 2015 #40
No probs! spooky3 Apr 2015 #47
That Roberts said that and asked the question in his last quoted sentence hifiguy Apr 2015 #44
Notorious RBG DebbieCDC Apr 2015 #41
I adore Justice Ginsburg Terra Alta Apr 2015 #46
Head and Master Rule in Louisiana - how truly terrible. patricia92243 Apr 2015 #49
Ruth is my kind of gal Skittles Apr 2015 #54
Slayed them! MaggieD Apr 2015 #55
Spot on! suffragette Apr 2015 #65
She laid waste to the ridiculous notion that gay marriage hurts straight marriage Novara Apr 2015 #67
She's 82? Sharp is what she is. GOLGO 13 Apr 2015 #68

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
61. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 12:32 AM
Apr 2015

K&R!

Do you know how long I had to hold that "0" button down!



There isn't much noise on who's gonna take the baton after her but them's some mighty shoe's to fill. Dare I say irreplaceable?

I know I'd give her a BIG hug and a little twirl if I ever got the chance.

Monk06

(7,675 posts)
23. Just a bit of literary licence. The right likes to constantly dwell on her age. They lust for her
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:16 AM
Apr 2015

chair.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
27. I have no problem with the license or the taking of it. Just adding info for those who may have
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:24 AM
Apr 2015

missed that datum.

Monk06

(7,675 posts)
48. Freepers use that incident, if you can call it that, to advocate for Ginsburg's retirement and
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 07:24 PM
Apr 2015

mandatory retirement age for SCJs. What age do they recommend? Alito's age LOL. SERIOUSLY

merrily

(45,251 posts)
51. They want her to retire so Obama can appoint another Justice?
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:06 PM
Apr 2015

Great strategy, for a winger!

Although I guess they may want her off for the same reason I want her on.

I didn't know that was one of their agendas. I guess that explain the posts I saw here lying that she is anti-abortion and saying she is selfish not to step down so appoint can appoint another Justice in case we lose the white House next year. ugh.

Monk06

(7,675 posts)
62. The RW hopes they get their way with the next SC pick especially with a RW congress and what they
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 01:20 AM
Apr 2015

consider a lame duck President. Much as they got Roberts thinking he was a conservative in their eyes.

They don't like him so much anymore and want another Alito.

Needless to say they hate Sotamayer and think that they are owed the next one in their column.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
63. Ater a second, I got that. My problem is I read and post only at DU, yet
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 01:22 AM
Apr 2015

I've seen the demands for Ruth to step down, calling her selfish, sometimes very nastily, too. Not only that, I've lies about her being anti-choice, which would not be a negative at FREEP.

Monk06

(7,675 posts)
64. Be thankful Cruz has his eyes on the GOP nomination. He would is more than qualified professionally
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 01:36 AM
Apr 2015

for the SC

 

Hoppy

(3,595 posts)
25. That's the mistake people make about Clarence Thomas.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:20 AM
Apr 2015

He pretends to be napping but one of these days he is gonna snap.

Midnight Writer

(21,712 posts)
66. "She managed to raise her head from her usual drunken stupor"
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 04:02 AM
Apr 2015

Quote from "Constitutional Scholar' Mark Levine on his odious radio show.

surrealAmerican

(11,357 posts)
4. This is one reason ...
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 08:20 AM
Apr 2015

... you don't want to retire Justices due to age. Justice Ginsburg lived that history. It isn't just something she studied in school.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
52. Scalia is smart. Deceptive, but smart. For a justice, he tries too hard to draw attention
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:10 PM
Apr 2015

to himself, starting with that ridiculous hat.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
30. Tell me about it. Breyer and Kagan joined the (R) clowns on the Medicaid part of the ACA decision.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:29 AM
Apr 2015

The ACA enabled the feds to withhold all FEDERAL Medicaid money if the states did not expand Medicaid. Ginsburg and Sotomayor said the feds had power to do that. Breyr and Kagan joined the Republicans in saying no.

So, now, the Republican Justice have cover for that decision and we reinforce the idea that the federal government has no right to spend or withhold federal money in the states in any way the federal government wishes to spend its own money.



LuckyLib

(6,817 posts)
50. No question. Runs circles around the rest of the court. And Clarence Thomas? Not even
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 09:55 PM
Apr 2015

in the room where brains are concerned.

olegramps

(8,200 posts)
10. It is clear that four of the justices are driven totally by ideology.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 09:26 AM
Apr 2015

The conservative justices will not base their decision on the Constitution, but solely on their religious prejudices. They make a mockery out of the court that was supposed to be totally above politics and religious influence. The Nation's Founding Fathers confidence that honorable people would preside over the nation's laws has been trashed by the conservatives who are totally without honor.

gregcrawford

(2,382 posts)
13. BINGO!
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 09:39 AM
Apr 2015

Conservatives have demonstrated, indeed, stated publicly, that ANY tactic, no matter how malicious and deceitful, is perfectly justified in order to further the imposition of their insatiable craving for dominion over the lives of others. They lie because only lies can support their diseased belief system.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
26. Exactly ,,,How can there be a case ,,,,
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:21 AM
Apr 2015

for the opponents of GM if there are no victims created by its existence. .....??????

Ms. Toad

(33,992 posts)
36. Because, under traditional analysism, the state only has to have a rational basis
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:04 AM
Apr 2015

for excluding same gender marriage. To adapt a phrase from drafting opinions for an appellate court - did the legislators/voters go nuts in creating the law? The law stands. It really is an extremely deferential standard.

(Not arguing for what should be, but explaining the reality of how laws are normally interpreted.)

Orrex

(63,172 posts)
12. Our entire research budget should go toward preserving her health and quality of life
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 09:37 AM
Apr 2015

I want that woman on the bench for another 82 years.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
16. One side has Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:02 AM
Apr 2015

The other side has Clarence Thomas who is so (rightfully) afraid of opening his mouth and proving that he's a fool that he says nothing.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
22. The other side has that lying waste of skin, Scalia, yet he and Ginsburg love each other's company.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:09 AM
Apr 2015

That's seems so odd these days.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
24. people with like magintudes of intelligence almost always enjoy each other's mind.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:18 AM
Apr 2015

no matter whether they are in agreement.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
33. That may depend on what they choose to discuss.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:45 AM
Apr 2015

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Roberts is extremely smart and well-educated. I could envision his taking positions in conversations that would cause me to re-consider my stand on non-violence.

 

951-Riverside

(7,234 posts)
28. Clarence Thomas is known to just sit and stare.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:25 AM
Apr 2015

There was a rumor that he doesn't even write most of his own opinions and the opinions that he does write are very short and simple.

He is an utter disgrace to the court.

Unvanguard

(4,588 posts)
60. Clarence Thomas is not a fool.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:57 PM
Apr 2015

You can disagree with him--you should, because his views are deeply wrong, and would cause massive damage were the Court ever to adopt them--but he's quite smart. His willingness not to participate in oral argument, which often is a farcical display of justices seeking to make points to other justices at the expense of the ability of the attorneys to actually make arguments, is frankly a point in his favor.

malthaussen

(17,175 posts)
32. Surprised Bursch answered that way,
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:44 AM
Apr 2015

... since it seems fairly obvious that those states do want to preserve marriage as it once was. I guess he's not allowed to say it out loud.

-- Mal

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
34. Even Scalia has praised Justice Ginsburg....
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:48 AM
Apr 2015
"Having had the good fortune to serve beside her on both courts, I can attest that her opinions are always thoroughly considered, always carefully crafted and almost always correct (which is to say we sometimes disagree). That much is apparent for all to see," he wrote.

"What only her colleagues know is that her suggestions improve the opinions the rest of us write, and that she is a source of collegiality and good judgment in all our work."

Despite their stark ideological differences, Ginsburg and Scalia have been friends for years. Beyond their mutual respect for each other's intellect and professional accomplishments, the two share a love for the opera and for decades would celebrate New Year's Eve together with their spouses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/16/ruth-bader-ginsburg-antonin-scalia_n_7078474.html

spooky3

(34,405 posts)
35. This q would never be raised had we continued to
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:04 AM
Apr 2015

Have an all male court, or one with only one woman. It is a good example of why courts need to reflect all of society.

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
38. I like what Justice Roberts said:
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 01:32 PM
Apr 2015

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” he said, according to The New York Times. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
44. That Roberts said that and asked the question in his last quoted sentence
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 07:12 PM
Apr 2015

means that the reichwingers are in very deep shit. Roberts may be a lot of things but dumb is assuredly not one of them. He may push this in the direction of being an open-and-shut sex discrimination case, on which Justice Ginsburg could certainly provide backup. She MADE most of that law as an attorney before the SCOTUS.

patricia92243

(12,591 posts)
49. Head and Master Rule in Louisiana - how truly terrible.
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 08:47 PM
Apr 2015


"Head and Master" laws were a set of American property laws that permitted a husband to have final say regarding all household decisions and jointly owned property without his wife's knowledge or consent, until 1979 when Louisiana became the final state to repeal them. Until then, the matter of who paid for property or whose name was on the deed had been irrelevant.

The law existed on the basis that the legal definition of marriage, during the period the laws were in effect, delegated the husband's role as supporting the family and the wife's as housekeeping, childrearing, and providing sex.
 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
55. Slayed them!
Wed Apr 29, 2015, 10:50 PM
Apr 2015

It's too bad we didn't get Gore instead of Bush. This country would be a much better place if we didn't have the ahole justices Bush appointed on the court.

Novara

(5,821 posts)
67. She laid waste to the ridiculous notion that gay marriage hurts straight marriage
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 07:07 AM
Apr 2015

I never understood that one. How does gay marriage take anything away from anyone else???? I can't believe the attorney even voiced that.

Oh, and the "marriage is for procreation" bullshit? Please. She had a classic answer for that too.

Those two "arguments" against gay marriage tells you they've got nuthin'.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ruth Bader Ginsburg evisc...