Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

Impeach the lying sack of crap.

And while they are at it, impeach all four of the left-wing judges and John Roberts.

What a bunch of biased political hacks.

In Confirmation Hearings, Elena Kagan Stated “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

 

Question: Can a SC justice be disbarred and if so can they still serve on the bench?

 

What in the world are you yammering about -- Did an opinion she wrote state that there was a constitutional right?

Moonbattery?

 

The only mechanism for the removal of a Supreme Court Justice is impeachment.

 

Its over it is now a right. There will be no impeachment unless you impeach Scalia and Thomas as well.

 

I'm not sure what your point is? When they asked her that question there wasn't a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would she be disbarred?

 

So Kagan perjured herself while under oath during the Senate conformation hearings.

She had to be an Obama nomination.


I don't know but I was told that perjury use to be a crime. But that was before a community organizer was in the White House.

 

I'll trade him Kagan for Scalia and Thomas. Then Obama gets to appoint THREE new justices.

 

Thats completely correct. In addition, there is no constitutional right to any kind of marriage.

However the ruling was not about establishing marriage rights. It was about equal protection. You are trying to refute an argument that has not been made.

 

In what way did she perjur herself?

- - - Updated - - -

This is incorrect. Marriage has been ruled a constitutional right in dozens of Supreme Court cases.

 

Even if you could impeach all of them, their rulings would still stand anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you give me a source for one of them?

 

At the time there was not the interpretation that there is today. Isn't that why attorneys bring cases before the court to argue the case so that the justices will see the interpretation from a different angle?

IMO, it shouldn't have taken very much interpretation because it is so blatantly wrong to deny gay couples equal rights

 

Loving v Virginia.

 

Precisely Peppermint.. despite Scalia's indecipherable cries of pure applesauce, argle-bargle & jiggery-pokery the constitution is a living document.

Kind of SCOTUS' job to interpret what things were like 250 years ago.

 

.....
I'm pretty sure the question was meant to find out if such a principle (as federal constitutional right to gay marriage)
could be inferred from legal precedent.


Kagan stated no to get confirmed. Then she voted yes. Classic leftist move.

 

And she was right. There wasn't one - until a few years later.

 

I'm so glad this is all over now.

 

It is the amendment process that makes the constitution a living document. Today's SCOTUS should go by what is written and by the original intent of the framers. The if citing an amendment, go by what the writers of that amendment and the debate over it in congress, the congressional journal has all of that. That is supposed to be their job. Now if I understand this right, the 14th amendment was cited in this case, which denying SSM could be seen as an abridgment. That might be pushing it, but I can see where SSM could and did fall in the view of this court.

Just call it a victory for individual liberty over placing someone in a group to deny their individual liberty.

 

It is most definitely not over.

First, note that it addresses no LGBT issue other than marriage. And, there are numerous such issues, including employment, public accommodation/business service, education, etc.

Then, note that many are focused on discrimination even in marriage at the state level.

We have active concern about racial equality today, and how long has that been decided?

 

The SC stated such a right in Loving v Virginia.

More importantly, the deciding factor here was the 14th amendment requirement for equal trearment.

 

Was there any question which way a liberal justice would vote, they vote en bloc regardless of the Constitution.

It is a misuse of the amendment. Marriage licenses were in the interest of the 'legitimate State purpose' in the first place for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the recent gay agenda. It was never considered discrimination because marriage has never been anything but between a man and a woman historically. That is generally understood.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

 

Well it's over for me because I've been arguing in favor of SSM on pf since 2005. I also really don't think Kagan will be impeached. If there are other big issues relating to the LGBT community (of which I'm not a member ), I'm going to leave that to the younger generation. I will shortly be riding off into the sunset for a lifetime of massages and margaritas ☺

 

Congrats! That does sound more than a little attractive.

 

Not even slavery was considered undue discrimination at one time and before that for thousands of years - even as noted and accepted in the Bible. So, the "history" part of this hits me as emotion rather than a legal point.

Your comment about marriage and "gay agenda" is clearly wrong".

The fact of the matter is that there is NO difference between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage when it comes to state interest. The same issues pertain in all cases related to children, stability/mutual support, orderly dissolution, immigration, legal testimony, legal decision making (such as, but not limited to health care), etc., etc.


Given this fact that there is no difference to the state and the fact that no same sex marriage can possibly impinge on you or on me in my hetero marriage, I really fail to see any possible direction for a legal argument in favor of discrimination.

Read Scalia's dissent - he just thrashes in frustration. In Lawrence v Texas Scalia states in his dissent that following that ruling same sex marriage is inevitable - which one must presume to mean that sexual behavior was the final issue in his mind. And, state involvement in that is certainly a minority position today.

So, in that respect Scalia was right - same sex marriage was indeed inevitable.

 

History not withstanding, you might have something. What 'legitimate State purpose' is gay marriage? It is obvious with normal marriage.