www.finance.yahoo.com/news/clarence-thomas-invokes-comparison-slavery-155758716.html I understand what Justice Thomas is saying here. He makes some great points about dignity and liberty. What the decision has done is basically made our society an experiment. Of course no one knows what effects this will have on society. Why it has been so difficult to study is not easy to understand. I guess it is a topic that is so polarizing any honest research is impossible. I just wonder what "consequences for our constitution and society" Thomas is thinking will happen? It does seem to bring a conflict to individual and religious liberty. I guess we will see.
I'm not sure where Thomas is coming from. In my eyes, this case is no different than Loving v. Virginia. Social norms change, and that's what we're seeing here: The nation living up to its promise of equality. Individual liberty has been expanded, and no one's religious liberty is threatened.
As long as no one's religious liberty is threatened it would be a good thing. As far as social norms changing that is highly questionable.
No one's liberty is threatened. Christians can go on being Christian. Jews will continue to be Jews, etc. Completely disagree. Support for gay marriage has essentially doubled over the last ten years, even among Christians.
Strict Constructionists have no concept of the explicit "equity" clause in the Constitution when it comes to court cases.
The term [strict constructionism] has been criticized as being a misleading or meaningless term. Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists, due to the narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, once wrote: "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be", calling the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute". Scalia summarized his textualist approach as follows: "A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely believed that "strict constructionism" is not really a philosophy of law or a theory of interpretation, but a coded label for judicial decisions popular with a particular political party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism The concept of strict constructionism seems odd to me. Times change, words mean different things to different people, situations arise that no one had thought about, etc. I agree with Scalia that text should be construed reasonably.
It's an interesting argument to say for sure, but it leaves out one detail. I'll have to read the dissent to know for sure but I would like to know where he thinks Dignity comes from then. Dignity to me comes from the belief of self worth. If a person is valuable it is because he believes that he himself is a valuable person. So where does that belief come from? Being able to do something and not be afraid of unreasonable retribution. So how can a person believe they have dignity if the government denies them the right to be who they are? Why should the government take away the foundation needed to have dignity?
Very good point. This goes to what Scalia said, "...[text of the Constitution] should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."
Yeah, it would seem contradictory, but I'm in no position to criticize the mind of a SC justice. I'm sure he has valid reasons for voting as he did.
Maybe the following will change your mind, however I don't believe anything can sway your ideology. CAAP CALLS ON JUSTICES GINSBURG AND KAGAN TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISION By DR. SUSAN BERRY 12 Mar 2015 The founder and president of a coalition of black pastors has called upon U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case that is currently before the high court. In a recent press release, Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) cited Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s “stated bias” as reason to recuse themselves in order to preserve the integrity of the court. Owens and his organization have launched a petition to bring attention to the alleged “lack of impartiality” on the part of the two justices. In February, Ginsburg, 81, said in an interview with Bloomberg Business that Americans are ready to accept a Supreme Court decision that legalizes same-sex marriage because of significant changes in attitudes toward gay individuals. Ginsburg also became the first Supreme Court justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding in Washington. Kagan has since officiated at a same-sex wedding as well. The 5-4 vote was strictly a political vote and legislation from the bench of SCOTUS, no different than the Progressive Democrat forced Dredd v. Scott decision. “A Justice of the Supreme Court is called on to avoid the appearance of bias—especially on a highly controversial and sensitive issue that is currently before the Court,” said Owens. “And yet, both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan have taken a public stance in favor of same-sex marriage, even going so far as to officiate at a same-sex wedding.” See: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...e-themselves-from-same-sex-marriage-decision/ My question is that both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg performed same sex marriages before they adjudicated and voted on this decision. These actions disqualified their vote as biased.
How does this change anything I wrote? I see no connection between my words and this article from March. Some pastors are upset. So what?
I disagree with the opinion set forth by Justice Clarence Thomas. He is totally wrong. Gays have the right to marry under the 14th Amendment.
He is a rather strict constructionist of sorts. I have seen an interview with him in which he indicated that it was not his duty to make the Constitution say what he thought the law should be, or something along that line, rather to interpret law in accordance to what the thing actually says. IIRC it was a 60 Minutes interview but I am not certain.
Most likely you think you know things you don't. I didn't say that was a problem. I made a statement. Again, you assume you know things you don't.
Not outright, no. Yes, a statement which, given the tenor of your posts here, is pointless unless you think it's a problem, whether you've got stones enough to be up front about it or not. Everything I just said is fact. You're welcome.
