General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRuth Bader Ginsburg eviscerates same-sex marriage opponents in court
At 82, the supreme court justice cut through the question of gay marriages 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 courts decision in 1982 when Louisianas 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 youre 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.
merrily
(45,251 posts)No words are big enough for this tiny, brave woman.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)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.
Ohio Joe
(21,726 posts)I like it
Monk06
(7,675 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Monk06
(7,675 posts)chair.
merrily
(45,251 posts)missed that datum.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)mandatory retirement age for SCJs. What age do they recommend? Alito's age LOL. SERIOUSLY
merrily
(45,251 posts)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)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)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)for the SC
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)He pretends to be napping but one of these days he is gonna snap.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,712 posts)Quote from "Constitutional Scholar' Mark Levine on his odious radio show.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)surrealAmerican
(11,357 posts)... you don't want to retire Justices due to age. Justice Ginsburg lived that history. It isn't just something she studied in school.
diddlysquat
(1,156 posts)Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Cause if ever there was a moment, that was it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)when you are as smart as she is.
merrily
(45,251 posts)to himself, starting with that ridiculous hat.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Greybnk48
(10,162 posts)By far!
LuckyLib
(6,817 posts)in the room where brains are concerned.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)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)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)for the opponents of GM if there are no victims created by its existence. .....??????
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)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.)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Orrex
(63,172 posts)I want that woman on the bench for another 82 years.
eggplant
(3,908 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)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)That's seems so odd these days.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)no matter whether they are in agreement.
rurallib
(62,379 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)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)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)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)... 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)"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)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.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Im not sure its 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 cant. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isnt that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
spooky3
(34,405 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)spooky3
(34,405 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)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.
DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)I hope she is able to stay on the Court for a very, very long time.
patricia92243
(12,591 posts)"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.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)yes INDEED
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)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.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)K&R
Novara
(5,821 posts)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'.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)Notorious RBG just put her foot squarely in his ass.