In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court legalizes Same-sex Marriage

Livewire · Jun 27, 2015

Users They call Me Brandon Lee and God, if you could take some of the details of your personal exchange to VM's and out of this thread, that would be great. Carry on.

Entermaid · Jun 27, 2015

Pinkie-Dawn said:
I've been seeing this celebration everywhere on both my games and on the websites I visit. However, I'm worried about my friend, who is really against this, because he believes it's one step closer to communism due to this ruling being done by the U.S. government.

Can't tell if serious?

How does this case have anything to do with socioeconomic conditions, class structure/conflict, ownership of the means of production, ect. Unless this is a joke and I am dense. I fail to see how this is relevant, if not the antithesis of modern communist states, all of which do not legally recognize same-sex relationships.

Perhaps your friend is conflating authoritarian or strong central governmental control with communism? In that case, as I have explained before, there was no rational basis for states to restrict rights, and the Court, exercising their ability to interpret the first amendment and incorporate it into their evaluation of states' law, have made these legally-binding decisions (case law/constitutional law) for over a century...why now do people care? It is namely because of the subject matter, not the principle. The dissenting justices failed to make a good argument to overcome the scrutiny of a protected class under the equal protection clause. If anything, the Court is restricting state's from making arbitrary laws which restrict freedom. Increasing liberality is usually not associated with authoritarianism.

curiousnathan · Jun 27, 2015

Seeing anti marriage equality activists screaming in horror of this change

Golurks Were Meant to Fly · Jun 27, 2015

Yay rest of America :D Bout damn time tbh.

Pinkie-Dawn · Jun 27, 2015

The Dark Avenger said:
Can't tell if serious?

How does this case have anything to do with socioeconomic conditions, class structure/conflict, ownership of the means of production, ect. Unless this is a joke and I am dense. I fail to see how this is relevant, if not the antithesis of modern communist states, all of which do not legally recognize same-sex relationships.

Perhaps your friend is conflating authoritarian or strong central governmental control with communism? In that case, as I have explained before, there was no rational basis for states to restrict rights, and the Court, exercising their ability to interpret the first amendment and incorporate it into their evaluation of states' law, have made these legally-binding decisions (case law/constitutional law) for over a century...why now do people care? It is namely because of the subject matter, not the principle. The dissenting justices failed to make a good argument to overcome the scrutiny of a protected class under the equal protection clause. If anything, the Court is restricting state's from making arbitrary laws which restrict freedom. Increasing liberality is usually not associated with authoritarianism.

Here's his full conversation regarding the subject:

Spoiler:

When I told him about several yuri shippings he supports, which could make him a hypocrite, he refuted by saying that they're fantasy, meaning not real, so it's ok, and he stated how colleges want people to see this line blurred. I fear this debate may ruin our friendship.

Kanzler · Jun 27, 2015

5-4 is no more railroaded than most parliamentary decisions which just involve a simple majority - although you could make a case for the Supreme Court requiring at least a 6-3 or 7-2 majority if you really wanted to. I don't really know the history of the SCOTUS and the rationale behind requiring a 5-4 majority for its decisions as opposed to a greater one, but that's the argument worth having, not "government seeking control of people's lives" because I'm not sure how same-sex marriage translates into increased government control.

Ivysaur · Jun 27, 2015

Pinkie-Dawn's friend said:
The Senior Supreme Court Justice was even against it, but it was a 5-4 railroaded through. The Government has no right to railroad anything like that; just another peg closer to Communism. I don't look it through the intelligent, idiots that lie to their students in college. Stalin and Lenin both did the same things.
-Socialize the Medicare System
-Raise the Food Tax, Traffs, and Trade Costs
-Legalized Gay Marriage
What is missing is just removal of public arms and this country is the new United Soviet States of America.
Again through, that is just the Government seeking 100% control of everyone's lives, no freedom. But when I explain and even show proof, I am ignored so you know what.
Who psyducking cares anymore.........
I don't hate Gay People. I just don't accept their culture and how radicals thrust it down those who don't accept it. Also, define a lot. Because over 10k were protesting the legalization outside of the Supreme Court for months now, and plenty more were supporting as well from afar. The only reason why it was pushed through was due to the Supreme Court having four gays on the council and the 5th man was a wildcard. If you call me an extreme conservative.An extreme conservative is an extremely right-winger. That is Furtherism. AKA Nazism. I am a defender of tradional values and someone who loves their country. But did you know the Nazi SS were all Gay? They were, Hitler knew this as well. Surprise. They weren't anti-gay at all. They were anti-anything not pure.

The USSR, Canada, the UK, Spain, France... all of them notorious Communist hellholes with socialized medicine, same-sex marriage- oh wait, it was never legal in the USSR. So this ruling, if anything, is making the US get closer to becoming Canada or Western Europe, truly Communist nightmares all of them. Now they only need to give up their weapons and then maybe they can even become a hellhole like the UK, where only 4 people have been killed by law enforcement over the last 5 years.

Also it's pretty fun, the "tariffs" part, just as Obama is discussing trade agreements with the EU and most of Asia to remove those tariffs and reduce trade costs.

Keiran · Jun 27, 2015

Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer said:
Just a thought, but could this ruling actually go into the Republicans favour in 2016, With this and the whole Confederate Flag thing going on, I bet there is a LOT of pissed off Americans out there who considerer thier whole way of life now being under threat.

If their whole way of life is putting other people under threat for being something they arbitrarily don't like, then being under threat is the karma they deserve.

twocows · Jun 27, 2015

The Dark Avenger said:
Um, I wrote extensively of other cases in which the Court creates law.

Nowhere does the Constitutions say marriage is a right to all regardless of race. The Court included this right to marriage, regardless of race, as legally binding through case law, which supersedes state law via the supremacy clause. Thereby the Court is creating law through Loving v. Virginia. I have already said this! But again, to be clear, in the past, LAW, specifically, case law has been established, which is legally binding and a non-democratic process. This is not novel to this one particular case and has been done literally hundreds of times.

Please do not quote a single paragraph of entire discussion, and cut out the parts where I demonstrate that the Court has made law in the past which supersedes state law, and then assert that I am making a different claim, and calling it a "strawman"...that's pretty ironic since that is exactly what you are doing emphatically since I go on to speak more about how case law is developed through the 14th amendment quite extensively.

Spoiler:

"the "gay marriage case" is sooooo not novel in this respect, this is one of literally hundreds of examples many came before and after the loving v virginia case (1967). The equal protection clause legalizes behaviors of individuals which were not previously legal and increases rights of individuals vis-a-vis state legislatures and majority opinions." In other words creates law, specifically case law.

"The court, by stipulating that states do NOT have the right to create marriage laws preventing two individuals of different racial backgrounds to marry has indirectly legalized the marriage of black and white unions. Otherwise, as demostrated by the lack of public support, interracial marriage would not be legalized through democratic processes. Especially if we consider southern states which still concerns this issues as controversial. States MUST accommodate these unions by the ruling of the case. This is called case law. "

The example I use to show an opinion which creates case law....the bold word are literally stating case law defined by the Court.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.

"This form of case law is so not novel "

Your argument is that the Court has created new law before. Perhaps you are confusing the act of creating new law with interpreting existing law. The examples you provided showed cases where the SCOTUS interpreted existing law in the context of existing law, especially the Constitution. You pointed out at least one dissent that argued they may be creating new law, but in that case, as with this case, the majority argued that they weren't doing that.

Additionally, this case goes a bit further in that direction, hence the stronger dissent. To emphasize this, no less than four Justices each wrote their own dissents, all four joined by at least two of the others. Additionally, Chief Justice Roberts read a summary of his dissent aloud to the court to emphasize his displeasure with the ruling, something he has never, ever done before.

As with the case you pointed out, the majority here argued that they weren't creating new law, merely interpreting the Constitution. That is because the Court is not granted the authority to create new law by the Constitution and none of the Justices would ever try to argue otherwise because they would be factually incorrect. Case law, more commonly known as precedent, does not refer to the Court issuing decrees of new law, it refers to past court rulings that interpret and/or clarify existing law, usually in the pursuit of striking down a lower law as invalid.

The majority in this case again argues they are only interpreting in the framework of the Constitution, specifically the 14th and the 5th Amendments. They argue that what they are doing is not creating new laws, merely ruling restrictions to be invalid based on the Constitution. The four dissents argue that they are doing more than that. Roberts argues that they are writing their own social perspectives into the Constitution, something they do not have the authority to do (the Supreme Court does not have the authority to change the Constitution, only Congress does). He argues "the Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage" and that, as marriage is not defined by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that the question must be left up to the states. Alito's dissent (neither Roberts nor Alito joined each other's dissent, so they are distinct) further presses this last point (p. 1-2 Alito, "The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.").

You are trying to press the point that there is precedent for the SCOTUS to essentially create new law, but not a single person on the Court would try to argue that, as it would be a blatant abuse of judicial authority. The majority in this case certainly didn't try to argue that they had the power to create new law. Quite the contrary, they specifically argued that they weren't creating new law. The crux of their argument is thus (p. 19 Kennedy):

Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other.

They argue that they are interpreting two existing laws (specifically, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment) to come to a conclusion that was not explicitly stated in the text of either. Roberts dissents thus (p. 23, 24 Roberts):

The central point seems to be that there is a "synergy between" the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Ante, at 20. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases. [...] the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions.

Roberts (and all of the dissent) believes the Court is doing more than simply interpreting the Constitution and writing into it things that are not there. The majority responds thus (p. 24 Kennedy):

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act.

The majority argues that what they are allowing in their ruling is for people to assert a fundamental right that is already protected by the Constitution that the legislature has not only failed to recognized but has actively restricted (it is the role of the SCOTUS to strike down any law that stands in violation of a higher law and the Constitution is the highest law of the United States).

You argue that there is precedent for the Courts to create new laws. At the very least, if that was the case, the Court would be forced to admit that in those cases, it had overstepped its judicial authority. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to create new laws and if that is what it is doing here, it is overstepping its authority. The majority opinion argues that it is not creating new law and I am inclined to agree, but if they are creating new law, they are in the wrong.

Sir Codin · Jun 27, 2015

Ivysaur said:
Now they only need to give up their weapons and then maybe they can even become a hellhole like the UK, where only 4 people have been killed by law enforcement over the last 5 years.

Will you people please give it a fucking rest with the guns in the U.S. thing already? Damn.

Her · Jun 27, 2015

CarcharOdin said:
Will you people please give it a fucking rest with the guns in the U.S. thing already? Damn.

Well, I mean, there's been 72 mass shootings in America in the two and a half years since Sandy Hook, so...

But that is a discussion for another thread and I'm surprised there hasn't been one made already.

Sir Codin · Jun 27, 2015

God said:
Well, I mean, there's been 72 mass shootings in America in the two and a half years since Sandy Hook, so...

But that is a discussion for another thread and I'm surprised there hasn't been one made already.

Oh, trust me, there's been tons of them made before and I've seen enough bullshit in those threads for a lifetime.

Entermaid · Jun 27, 2015

Response to the textualist/originalist arguments by Scalia....which he has been doing for years now ONLY when it serves his partisan beliefs:

Spoiler:

No, not confused with the terms of creating new law and interpreting existing law. You are conflating "law" with statutory law. Interpretation of vague and broad laws stipulated by the US constitutions has set legally binding precedent, which has implications on which laws states can make and compels states to make actions.

The Justices on the affirming side are not claiming to be making statutory law; rather, they interpret the Constitution, thereby amending the legal application of Constitutional law, by which restricts state's ability to legislate in a manner which conflicts with there interpretation, and further, in some cases they stipulate conditions by which state governments must adhere to. For instance Loving v Virginia and the Brown v School Board. In both cases the Court not only restricted unconstitutional practices, but further, set legally-binding requirement onto state governments. These legal prescriptions are not statutory law, and rather, are necessary conditions in order for a state goverment to be adhere to Constitutional law, and providing rights afforded by the Constitutional law.

For instance, in the Loving V Virginia case, the Court mandated that states must allow marriages between interracial couples, this is a legally-binding stipulation that requires states not only cannot act in certain ways but compels them to act in other ways. Any state that does not provide marriages to interracial couples is breaching constitutional law since the Court defined the ability to marriage an alienable right which must be provided by the state. With interpreting the law, though case law, which is setting the highest legal-binding precedent, the Supreme Court sets necessary conditions by which states must adhere, whether it is limiting state power or compelling them to adhere to a set of conditions. The constitution is a legally binding document, and by interpreting this document, the Court expands legal applicability to law. How many times has the Court done this in the past and required states to meet necessary conditions? Too many to count! Seriously, have you read the numerous cases of selective incorporation of the 14th amendment? The Court has expanded the legally necessary conditions by which states must abide. Thus, case law, interpretation, clarifies Constitutional law, which sets legal restrictions on states.

At the point of the Loving v Virginia decision, several states didn't make law extending rights to interracial couples, and rather, many states kept the unconstitutional laws on the books. Why then are they issuing licenses to interracial couples; there is no statutory law? Because the Constitutional law FORCES them to issue the licence. However, states were not allowed to enforce these laws still on the books, since that would violate constitutional law. States further, were required to issue marriage licenses, if not that would violate the constitutional law. The Court, creates legally binding stipulations through interpretation of the constitution, I am not making the case that the SC is making statutory law, they are setting legal precedent case, of the constitution which has implications on statutory law and its enforcement of both the state and federal government (this is constitutional law). How is this any different than the Court stipulating that gays have a right to marriage and states must provide liscensure? There is no difference.

Decisions by the Court are legally-binding and have for over a century restricted behaviors of states AND compelled them to act in other ways to satisfy requirement of the Constitution. Legally compelling a state to adhere to conditions, is nothing new, and is essentially what the dissent is vehemently against. That is why the affirming justices are pointing out that this is not an example of creating statutory law, but interpreting law, and making legally binding decisions which set conditions by which states must adhere to.

Scalia has flipflopped on the originalist/constructionalist viewpoint for years. This is nothing new. He has been claiming the SC cannot interpret the Constitution beyond its textual meaning. However, depending on whether it is a conservative issue or liberal issue he employs non-textual or texualist approaches. This case is novel, but only in respect to the content and the bias of the justices since it's hard to make compelling argument to restrict the right of marriage to gays legally, and thus, there is this hypocritical reliance upon textualist analysis. This is grasping at straws, since EVERY justice on that court has interpretted law, incorportated new meaning to the 14 amendment, and has amending the legally-binding requirements by which states must provide or not obstruct rights.

14th Amendment-
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

States cannot deprive rights without legal justification. The Court makes legally binding stipulations which require states to provide the same legal rights to all citizens. Selective incorporation of state law has occurred for years, and the Court interprets which laws must protect which classes. In essense, constitutional legal interpretation restricts and compels state government actions. It's been happening for year.

Kenchiin · Jun 30, 2015

Team Fail said:
Just gonna toss this in here, looks like CNN did a whoopsie: http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/cnn-freaks-out-about-buttplug-flag-at-pride-parade-1714408084

The responses below the post are the best part LOL

Entermaid · Jul 2, 2015

twocows said:
Your argument is that the Court has created new law before.

No. This is the third time I have said this, no, no, no. I am not arguing this. Is it clear yet!?

As stated several times, many times, I am making a distinction between statutory law and the constitutional law, which is created by legal precedent (case law). And no matter how many times I state this, you seem to make the case that I am arguing that the Court is "making [statutory] law".

The examples I bring up demonstrate that the Court has and continues to extend interpretation via new case law, which informs constitutional law. The way the court informs constitutional law, has legally binding authority. Never once, never once, never once, did I ever write that the SC made statutory law. I refer to case law, which are precedents like scrutiny tests and protected class tests, ect. These are all purposive tools used to fulfill the intent of the law. Constitutional law is vague and has no explicit legally binding authority until the Court establishes precedents through rulings, and it is tested.

For instance, imagine if we assumed a textualist approach to freedom of speech! Where is libel, slander, harrassment, and words enticing violence? They do not exist in the Constitution. These are defined by legal precedents, case law. Which then provides the law a specific authority.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law..abridging the freedom of speech"

Without case law and its creation, there is no Constitutional authority. For instance, before the Chapliski case, "fighting words" case, there was no legal authority provided by the Constitution regarding speech that incites violence. Without case law, the Constitution cannot exert any legal authority from a textual perspective.

Prior to this case, there was no authority by the Constitution regarding free speech and inciting violence through words.

Again, the strong dissent has nothing to do with the extent of purposive overreach, if that were the case, we would see inflammatory dissents more often. The Loving v Virginia case was 9-0, in favor of defining marriage as an inalienable right. Prior to this, there was no legal claim through the constitution that provided marriage as an inalienable right. This legal precedent is not statutory law, it is case law, and it impact the legal authority and boundaries of the Constitution. Prior to that case, the Constitution was vague regarding marriage, and had NO legally-binding authority over states. This is a clear example of purposive interpretation of the Constitution.

All of the members of that court have used purposive interpretation, contributed to the establishment of case law, and extended legal and boundaries of the Constitution, through interpretation.

Prior to that ruling in 1968, there was no legal claim to marriage through the Constitution.

TO THE MAIN POINT...
You are making the argument that the extent of purposivism is driving the dissent to have the reaction it is having, yet there is no difference between this case and other cases where the court has selectively incorporated rights. What exactly is different from this case and the many cases regarding freedom of religion, marriage, speech, due process, and practically every other area in which there has been interpretation, and a increase of legally binding authority of the Constitution?

Marriage as an inalienable right was already established. This owed right, as defined by legal precedent was then selectively incorporated through the 14th amendment to apply to same-sex couples. The Court then had to provide justification for incorporation. If anything Loving v Virginia expanded much more authority, since it created legally binding guarenteed right to marriage. That owed right was simply incorporated in the same-sex marriage case, how novel. Many groups have been incorporated and provided legally binding protection authorized by the Constitution. What is so novel about this case in this respect?

You have FAILED to show how it is novel in this respect, yet continue to say that there is a legitmate and unique concern...where's the support for that argument given hundreds of cases in which purposive interpretation expanded legal authority of the constitution. How is this unique? Why are you defending the dissent when purposive interpretation has been employed for over a century?

Your argument is that, because of the nature of the dissents' reaction:
"Additionally, this case goes a bit further in that direction, hence the stronger dissent. To emphasize this, no less than four Justices each wrote their own dissents, all four joined by at least two of the others. Additionally, Chief Justice Roberts read a summary of his dissent aloud to the court to emphasize his displeasure with the ruling, something he has never, ever done before."

This does not follow. Simply because there was a strong reaction by the dissent, it does not mean that this case is therefore novel in respect to purposivism. You do not even try to establish why it is unique to the hundreds of other examples. You are assuming that the content of the case is not driving the strong reactions, and ignoring the fact that these justices have all engaged in purposive interpretation. Each of them, as well as every justice before them in the past century.

With that said, what is actually driving the dissents' strong reaction. Why in this case, of all the cases involving the matter of purposivism, are the dissenters so strongly in opposition and contentious about the majority's opinion? We shouldn't be giving the dissenters a free card to hypocrisy, and justifying their positions in textualist groundings when they have used purposivism when it supported a partisan interest.

twocows · Jul 4, 2015

Again, I really don't know why you're making such a big fuss over this. As I said earlier, we agree on over half of what you're saying (we certainly agree that the outcome was correct) and that's part of the reason I haven't responded to every single last thing you've said: it would be a waste of everyone's time to respond to things I agree with a line basically saying "yeah, I agree."

But really, more than what you're saying, I really take significant issue with how you are saying it. Debate is supposed to be a process where people discuss and advocate for ideas and learn from each other. It's something anyone who cares should be able to take part in and come out better educated and more informed about their own beliefs as a result. Being overly verbose or incorporating too much jargon raises the barrier for public participation. Furthermore, focusing so heavily on semantics (legal semantics, at that) derails the discussion into a battle about something that doesn't relate to the central issue in a meaningful way. This is the other part of why I have tried to keep my responses brief and to the point: so that people can actually get something useful out of what I am saying, so I am not wasting everyone's time with overly verbose, jargon-filled, hard-to-read essays, so that I can try and keep the focus on the central issue, and so others can actually respond without taking the same 3-4 hours to write their posts that I've spent on this one.

And as I said, this is getting far too heavily into legal semantics, something which I am not an expert on. Legalese is difficult enough to understand with eight years of legal schooling and a lifetime of legal experience, and I have neither. Furthermore, being imprecise and outright contradictory with what you are saying (which I will point out shortly) doesn't really help make things any clearer. Subsequently using the resultant misunderstanding created by your own imprecise and contradictory language as a staging ground for your own argument does not contribute usefully to a robust public discussion.

So, if it's what you want so much, I will waste everyone's time (most especially my own) and respond to every last thing you've said, regardless of whether I think there's any reason to. In return, I would appreciate it if you could make your responses significantly more brief and to the point so I (and others) don't have to spend several hours writing a response. Debating semantics for hours on my holiday weekend is not my idea of a good time, I only do so because I feel it necessary.

The Dark Avenger said:
No. This is the third time I have said this, no, no, no. I am not arguing this. Is it clear yet!?

Just for comparison:

twocows said:
Your argument is that the Court has created new law before.

The Dark Avenger said:
I am not arguing this. Is it clear yet!?

The Dark Avenger said:
Um, I wrote extensively of other cases in which the Court creates law.

Further, you also said this:

the Court has made law in the past which supersedes state law

If you meant something else, you should have said something else. I'm not a legal expert and I'm certainly not a mind-reader; it makes things a lot more difficult to discuss when you outright contradict your own statements.

As stated several times, many times, I am making a distinction between statutory law and the constitutional law, which is created by legal precedent (case law). And no matter how many times I state this, you seem to make the case that I am arguing that the Court is "making [statutory] law".

As I said, I believe case law to be legally binding clarification of existing law. But if you want to call that "new law," then fine. That's a trivial matter of semantics that misses the point. Why? Because we both know what the dissent was getting at.

Or rather, I thought we did. But maybe one of us doesn't. So let me make it more clear exactly what it is that I believe the dissent takes issue with: they believe that the Court has started writing their own ideas and social perspectives into the Constitution, ****effectively**** creating new law (by which I specifically mean adding things that are not already there and cannot reasonably be inferred from the text or intent), however you might or might not precisely define the act of "creating new law" or what your definition of the word "law" encompasses. They believe the majority has started changing the definitions of words so they can "interpret" things that were were never meant to be covered to begin with.

And, since I very sincerely think you're going to miss this important point yet again, let me make it clear that I disagree. I think that they are wrong. All I am saying is that I think it is a reasonable concern, not that I think it is correct.

The examples I bring up demonstrate that the Court has and continues to extend interpretation via new case law, which informs constitutional law.

Yes. The Court has done this. We are not in disagreement about this.

The way the court informs constitutional law, has legally binding authority.

Again, I agree completely with this.

Never once, never once, never once, did I ever write that the SC made statutory law.

You didn't. You spoke more generally than that; you said that the SCOTUS made NEW LAW, full stop. If that's not what you meant, then fine, but that is your error, not mine.

I refer to case law, which are precedents like scrutiny tests and protected class tests, ect. These are all purposive tools used to fulfill the intent of the law.

Again, I do not believe case law to be anything more than legally binding clarification, but again, I think this is splitting hairs and misses the point of what everyone involved means when they say "creating new law." The point of contention is whether the majority is going further than just interpretation and inference. And, as I have said quite a few times now, I personally disagree with the dissent and agree with the majority: the dissent argues that the majority has gone past that point (which would be dangerous if true), and the majority responds by saying that it is reading the intention behind two different clauses in two different amendments and coming to the natural conclusion based on how the concept of marriage has evolved over time. I think that they are within their rights to do this.

Again, I agree with the majority's justification, I merely acknowledge the dissent's point as reasonable and admit that maybe, just maybe, I could be wrong. I know, right; just who do I think I am, admitting I could be wrong about something?

Constitutional law is vague and has no explicit legally binding authority until the Court establishes precedents through rulings, and it is tested.

That's both true and untrue. Really, it's more that it is overly brief and thus has gaps when applying it to real life situations, something which results in some degree of uncertainty. I believe this was by design; they wanted to leave it to future generations to figure out how it should apply in each specific situation. And the text is legally binding, it's just that how it applies to various situations isn't always clear or well-defined, hence the need for informed judicial insight. But maybe that's what you meant, in which case: yes, that is correct.

For instance, imagine if we assumed a textualist approach to freedom of speech! Where is libel, slander, harrassment, and words enticing violence? They do not exist in the Constitution. These are defined by legal precedents, case law. Which then provides the law a specific authority.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law..abridging the freedom of speech"

Without case law and its creation, there is no Constitutional authority. For instance, before the Chapliski case, "fighting words" case, there was no legal authority provided by the Constitution regarding speech that incites violence. Without case law, the Constitution cannot exert any legal authority from a textual perspective.

Prior to this case, there was no authority by the Constitution regarding free speech and inciting violence through words.

This is all correct, I agree completely with it, and it demonstrates very clearly a case where the court inferred from the intent to come to a new conclusion. Again, the question is, is the Court going further in this case? I was actually going to bring up Chapliski if you hadn't; it's a good example of where the Court has unanimously inferred based on the intent and spirit of the law.

Again, the strong dissent has nothing to do with the extent of purposive overreach, if that were the case, we would see inflammatory dissents more often. The Loving v Virginia case was 9-0, in favor of defining marriage as an inalienable right. Prior to this, there was no legal claim through the constitution that provided marriage as an inalienable right. This legal precedent is not statutory law, it is case law, and it impact the legal authority and boundaries of the Constitution. Prior to that case, the Constitution was vague regarding marriage, and had NO legally-binding authority over states. This is a clear example of purposive interpretation of the Constitution.

All of the members of that court have used purposive interpretation, contributed to the establishment of case law, and extended legal and boundaries of the Constitution, through interpretation.

Yes, and again, the question the dissent has is, is that what they are doing here, or are they going further than that?

Prior to that ruling in 1968, there was no legal claim to marriage through the Constitution.

And the ruling in that case inferred that there was a right to marriage based on existing language in the Constitution. What it didn't do was change the definition of the word; the dissent believes this goes further than just interpretation and that they are basically changing the language of existing law to suit their ideas. I do not, as I have stated already several times. Let me repeat that for emphasis: I agree with you that they are not going further than mere inference.

TO THE MAIN POINT...
You are making the argument that the extent of purposivism is driving the dissent to have the reaction it is having, yet there is no difference between this case and other cases where the court has selectively incorporated rights. What exactly is different from this case and the many cases regarding freedom of religion, marriage, speech, due process, and practically every other area in which there has been interpretation, and a increase of legally binding authority of the Constitution?

The difference is that in this instance, the Court is effectively changing the meaning of a word as part of the process of inferring the meaning of the law. The dissent believes that the meaning of the word has been clearly defined up until this point and that the majority is changing the definition of the word to cover the rights of people they believe should be protected. They believe that this means they are going further than just interpretation, they are actively changing what was said in the law to fit their own beliefs.

And again, I disagree. I think the core idea behind marriage hasn't changed at all and this is a natural evolution of the idea that has already largely occurred in society. I just think that their point reasonable, if incorrect.

Marriage as an inalienable right was already established. This owed right, as defined by legal precedent was then selectively incorporated through the 14th amendment to apply to same-sex couples. The Court then had to provide justification for incorporation. If anything Loving v Virginia expanded much more authority, since it created legally binding guarenteed right to marriage. That owed right was simply incorporated in the same-sex marriage case, how novel. Many groups have been incorporated and provided legally binding protection authorized by the Constitution. What is so novel about this case in this respect?

As above: changing word definitions to infer things that were never intended.

You have FAILED to show how it is novel in this respect, yet continue to say that there is a legitmate and unique concern...where's the support for that argument given hundreds of cases in which purposive interpretation expanded legal authority of the constitution. How is this unique? Why are you defending the dissent when purposive interpretation has been employed for over a century?

I fail to see how outright saying that I believe the dissent is wrong and that the majority's response sufficiently addresses their concerns is "defending the dissent." I guess I'm not allowed to say the people I disagree with are reasonable in modern "debate?" Or admit that I might happen to be wrong?

Your argument is that, because of the nature of the dissents' reaction:
"Additionally, this case goes a bit further in that direction, hence the stronger dissent. To emphasize this, no less than four Justices each wrote their own dissents, all four joined by at least two of the others. Additionally, Chief Justice Roberts read a summary of his dissent aloud to the court to emphasize his displeasure with the ruling, something he has never, ever done before."

This does not follow. Simply because there was a strong reaction by the dissent, it does not mean that this case is therefore novel in respect to purposivism. You do not even try to establish why it is unique to the hundreds of other examples. You are assuming that the content of the case is not driving the strong reactions, and ignoring the fact that these justices have all engaged in purposive interpretation. Each of them, as well as every justice before them in the past century.

No, it was evidence that the dissent believed the Court was going further than it had in the past, well past the point of interpretation and into the realm of legislation, hence their very strong opposition to the ruling. It was meant to give context to their ruling. I think it's good that they're so concerned about the scope of their own power. I wish the other two branches of government shared that concern.

With that said, what is actually driving the dissents' strong reaction. Why in this case, of all the cases involving the matter of purposivism, are the dissenters so strongly in opposition and contentious about the majority's opinion? We shouldn't be giving the dissenters a free card to hypocrisy, and justifying their positions in textualist groundings when they have used purposivism when it supported a partisan interest.

I don't think they're being hypocritical at all. Having briefly look at several other rulings the dissenting Justices have been involved with, it seems like this is a common theme: these four seem to have a tendency toward reading things more literally and worrying when things are interpreted more loosely. Am I wrong? That is an honest question, as I am only drawing on the maybe half a dozen or a dozen rulings those justices have been a part of that I have read. It just seems like they are more outspoken this time because they think the Court is going further than it has in past rulings where they dissented on similar grounds.

In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court legalizes Same-sex Marriage

More options

Livewire

Entermaid

curiousnathan

Starry-eyed

Golurks Were Meant to Fly

NERF THIS!

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu

Kanzler

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Keiran

[b]Rock Solid[/b]

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Sir Codin

Guest

Her

Sir Codin

Guest

Entermaid

Kenchiin

1/2,578,917 ☆

Entermaid

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen