In other words, the difference between "power" and "authority" is at stake here? Obama has the power to do it but not the rightful authority?

Yes, a state can trample the federal constitution: they do get away with it sometimes. It's not always that a case can make it to the supreme court to overrule a state's trampling the federal constitution. I mean, I see what you are saying but I still don't agree. What I am saying also is that five will get you ten you wouldn't be bitching about the USSC trampling it had the verdict been different. I doubt you would have said anything negative (though again I can't read your mind, just following your argument right here). And yet, by your logic, even hearing the case in the first place would trample it.

Why therefore would it not have been trampling the constitution, if the case had been lost instead of won by the proponents of same sex marriage?

yeah the Court doesn't always decide something in the best interests of the Constitution. But then again, there aren't any constitutional restrictions on its power/authority, are there? I read nothing in Article III technically limiting the court's power in any way. I am not saying it should be unlimited, but I am saying that the cause of this whole thing is not particular justices on the bench now, nor is it the cause of the "gays"; it's the cause of ambiguity in the federal constitution.

Probably the founding fathers never would have imagined Marshall would have decided Marbury v. Madison like he did, and the court would eventually become "a judge of its own power" (have you ever seen the movie First Monday in October? One of the justices says "this court is the judge of its own power!") The idea that the founding fathers designed a federal government consisting of three, equal parts is bullshit. They imagined the presidency would take a back seat to the Congress, as the legislature is the source of power in a republic (they reasoned at the time). But it's not like that anymore, is it?

And if limitations were put on the court in the constitution to limit its power to interpret the constitution, or to tell it HOW it could and couldn't interpret the constitution, would that not make null and void the purpose of a supreme constitutional court in the first place? Kinda make it so impotent that it would be useless and unnecessary to have?

I hope we don't get too far off topic here, but here is Article III for those of you who haven't seen it or have forgotten it (even though you can probably google it yourself; so not for nothing:)

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

When you get right down to it, show me where the court's power is really that limited at all?

JimHackerMP wrote:yeah the Court doesn't always decide something in the best interests of the Constitution. But then again, there aren't any constitutional restrictions on its power/authority, are there? I read nothing in Article III technically limiting the court's power in any way.

So much for the balance of power. So, what's to stop the USSC from becoming a dictatorship of 9? The only means of stopping it would be the unwieldy Amendment process.

I am not saying it should be unlimited, but I am saying that the cause of this whole thing is not particular justices on the bench now, nor is it the cause of the "gays"; it's the cause of ambiguity in the federal constitution.

I'd say your view is problematic and should be worrying. Any institution that has the power to be undemocratic is, by definition, a threat to democracy.

(The Founders) imagined the presidency would take a back seat to the Congress, as the legislature is the source of power in a republic (they reasoned at the time). But it's not like that anymore, is it?

No, so maybe it's time for another revolution of sorts. As it stands, the Congress has become increasingly irrelevant. That means, of course, that the voice of the people has become increasingly irrelevant. The only thing the Congress is good for these days is maintaining corporate welfare.

And if limitations were put on the court in the constitution to limit its power to interpret the constitution, or to tell it HOW it could and couldn't interpret the constitution, would that not make null and void the purpose of a supreme constitutional court in the first place? Kinda make it so impotent that it would be useless and unnecessary to have?

The singular limit should be an inability to create law. The Court must interpret law. It must make decisions about the meaning of laws. What it should not do is legislate. If it feels inclined to do so, it should refer that inclination to the legislature.

Doctor Fate wrote:Ever been to a wedding?

Yes, several, including my own.

Ever been to a wedding scene just before the wedding?

Again, several, including my own. Which we organised ourselves. Maybe we are odd, but the cake was nowhere near the ceremony. Because the cake is not part of the wedding

So, the cake, most likely, would have to be delivered by the bakers. (there's no other reasonable way to ensure the cake arrives as intended)

But you don't use a cake for the ceremony, so it would not be delivered to the ceremony. It may be at the same venue, but usually before the wedding itself, and in a different room in most cases.

If it is a matter of religious conscience as this couple claims, what might they be walking into?

A big hall kitted out for a wedding reception usually. What do you think it might be - a big gay orgy or something? I expect in reality it'll be caterers setting up, maybe people putting decorations out. The wedding will in the vast majority of cases be elsewhere. Or happening later.

THAT is why they are "participating."

No. It is not. It's delivering an order and setting it up. The couple, the officiant, the witnesses - they are "participating". The baker is simply providing goods and services.

What sort of decorations and/or inscriptions might be requested on the cake?

The ones the customer orders? Gosh same sex toppers, the same gender names, all kinds of horrors!

THAT is why they are "participating."

No, that is just fulfilling an order.

I know this is all nothing to you. It's not my fault your conscience is rarely afflicted.

Whatever, kidda.

danivon wrote:Whatever, kidda.

Hey, your opinion is certainly your opinion and your insults are, of course, nothing.

Have a great day and all that. Take all your bakery knowledge with you.

I've said this topic was played out and it is. I'm out.

Fate, it's funny you deem this topic "played out", when you've kept it up for 16 pages. But that seems to happen on Redscape. Personally I think you and I ought to have a frank and open exchange of views---and I'm sure we can do it perfectly respectfully---about the Supreme Court, because personally, I think it was just starting to get interesting (that part at any rate, if not necessarily the link to same-sex marriage).

I hope I haven't offended you in any way. Was never my intent, certainly, so I hope I didn't give that impression (or actually do it to any extent).

My views on the Supreme Court's "democraticness": the judiciary was never intended to be democratic, but to have been insulated from the wilder winds of public debate. And just because the constitution, or its interpretation thereof, has changed over 227 years does not mean it's time to scrap the whole thing. Let's not start sounding like Senator Palpatine ("The Republic is not what it once was...the Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates; no interest in the common good....")

Call me optimistic (which by the way I am not entirely, I consider myself a realist) but I think it is still more than "workable". I feel you are not being realistic about the Constitution. I agree that the SC oversteps its bounds and shouldn't "legislate" necessarily. But democratic systems need to be anchored with at least a few undemocratic features. Even pure, popular, democratic power is not by nature any less danger than any other form of power; I ONLY mean that statement that popular power must have its checks on it, and its diffusion. Do you really think the Founders would have disagreed with THAT statement? Why do you think the State of California is bankrupt and ineptly-run? The government of California actually makes Congress look efficient by comparison...

As they intended the presidency to have limited powers and functions, quite limited compared to today's "head of state" presidency, Congress was supposed to be the scene of the action. The "checks and balances" were supposed to come, not between the branches, but from WITHIN the legislative (the contrast between the Senate and the House). If you do not believe me, re-read a few of The Federalist Papers. I'm sorry I cannot think of which one said it off the top of my head, but they considered the republics of yore, and the legislative branch was the one that, in a republic, should be the most "energetic" (and the most likely to get out of control) according to our classically-educated Founders.

Because quite frankly, Dr Fate, I cannot find anything in Article III that really defines what the hell the federal judiciary is supposed to do, except take appeals from the States, and rule on them. If you will indulge me, I can have a more detailed response to your most recent counterpoint.

Or you could cut and run at this point. Which, reading some of the above posts, I almost wouldn't blame you for. But the Ball is in your Court, no pun intended.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Whatever, kidda.

Hey, your opinion is certainly your opinion and your insults are, of course, nothing.

In what way is "Whatever, kidda" an insult compared to:

"It's not my fault your conscience is rarely afflicted."

"You're being your typical jerk-self"

"you just keep being an obstinate rump"

"you really know nothing."

"No, I won't pardon you. You're being a dope."

"Yes, yes, anyone who does not agree with your perspective must be punished. Got it."

"So, get your fancy knickers on and go dance."

" I think those celebrating now would have been burning vehicles and buildings. "

???

In fact, I wonder if you even know what "kidda" means... I have determined to use it whenever you add a pointless jab against me. I seem to have found many openings for it.

Have a great day and all that. Take all your bakery knowledge with you.

Whatever, kidda.

JimHackerMP wrote:Fate, it's funny you deem this topic "played out", when you've kept it up for 16 pages.

especially as he declared it over about 3-4 pages ago.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Whatever, kidda.

Hey, your opinion is certainly your opinion and your insults are, of course, nothing.

In what way is "Whatever, kidda" an insult compared to:

"It's not my fault your conscience is rarely afflicted."

"You're being your typical jerk-self"

"you just keep being an obstinate rump"

"you really know nothing."

"No, I won't pardon you. You're being a dope."

"Yes, yes, anyone who does not agree with your perspective must be punished. Got it."

"So, get your fancy knickers on and go dance."

" I think those celebrating now would have been burning vehicles and buildings. "

???

In fact, I wonder if you even know what "kidda" means... I have determined to use it whenever you add a pointless jab against me. I seem to have found many openings for it.

Have a great day and all that. Take all your bakery knowledge with you.

Whatever, kidda.

Many of those were not insults. They were pointed responses to your games. I don't know why you do what you do--that's between you and your therapist.

JimHackerMP wrote:Fate, it's funny you deem this topic "played out", when you've kept it up for 16 pages. But that seems to happen on Redscape. Personally I think you and I ought to have a frank and open exchange of views---and I'm sure we can do it perfectly respectfully---about the Supreme Court, because personally, I think it was just starting to get interesting (that part at any rate, if not necessarily the link to same-sex marriage).

I hope I haven't offended you in any way. Was never my intent, certainly, so I hope I didn't give that impression (or actually do it to any extent).

My views on the Supreme Court's "democraticness": the judiciary was never intended to be democratic, but to have been insulated from the wilder winds of public debate. And just because the constitution, or its interpretation thereof, has changed over 227 years does not mean it's time to scrap the whole thing. Let's not start sounding like Senator Palpatine ("The Republic is not what it once was...the Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates; no interest in the common good....")

Call me optimistic (which by the way I am not entirely, I consider myself a realist) but I think it is still more than "workable". I feel you are not being realistic about the Constitution. I agree that the SC oversteps its bounds and shouldn't "legislate" necessarily. But democratic systems need to be anchored with at least a few undemocratic features. Even pure, popular, democratic power is not by nature any less danger than any other form of power; I ONLY mean that statement that popular power must have its checks on it, and its diffusion. Do you really think the Founders would have disagreed with THAT statement? Why do you think the State of California is bankrupt and ineptly-run? The government of California actually makes Congress look efficient by comparison...

As they intended the presidency to have limited powers and functions, quite limited compared to today's "head of state" presidency, Congress was supposed to be the scene of the action. The "checks and balances" were supposed to come, not between the branches, but from WITHIN the legislative (the contrast between the Senate and the House). If you do not believe me, re-read a few of The Federalist Papers. I'm sorry I cannot think of which one said it off the top of my head, but they considered the republics of yore, and the legislative branch was the one that, in a republic, should be the most "energetic" (and the most likely to get out of control) according to our classically-educated Founders.

Because quite frankly, Dr Fate, I cannot find anything in Article III that really defines what the hell the federal judiciary is supposed to do, except take appeals from the States, and rule on them. If you will indulge me, I can have a more detailed response to your most recent counterpoint.

Or you could cut and run at this point. Which, reading some of the above posts, I almost wouldn't blame you for. But the Ball is in your Court, no pun intended.

Some of your points are quite good. However, if you want to debate them, I've no desire to further fuel this forum. I did read them. The bit on Art. 3 is correct. I also agree the Presidency has grown quite obese.

Where I would draw the line (and I'm really done with homosexual marriage, therefore this forum) is this: the idea that the Court is one of the necessary "undemocratic" institutions. Now, if you mean ONLY "undemocratic" in the sense that it cannot and should not follow popular opinion, fine. However, if you mean "undemocratic" in the sense that it must be able to unilaterally do whatever it wants from time to time, then we disagree.

I think there are fundamental flaws in the current trajectory of the system. If these are not reformed, we will indeed have a revolution. It cannot continue indefinitely without massive blowback.

fate

If these are not reformed, we will indeed have a revolution. It cannot continue indefinitely without massive blow back

.

Massive blow back over Gay marriage?
A revolution?
When support for Gay marriage is a majority and growing?
Someone should take away your guns.

With that in mind, Dr Fate, should we begin a thread on the merits and demerits of the Supreme Court?

rickyp wrote:Someone should take away your guns.

They're far less dangerous than your keyboard.

Then again, if you could read what I wrote, then you would not write such things.

Doctor Fate wrote:Many of those were not insults. They were pointed responses to your games.

And "Whatever, kidda" is not an insult either, but some of those above clearly are.

I don't know why you do what you do--that's between you and your therapist.

Whatever, kidda.