Scarborough: Why isn’t Hillary’s comparison of pro-life Republicans to terrorists a bigger deal in the media?

@George Wells:

But she was wrong on the original SCOTUS decision, and I think she’s wrong again.

#1: I never predicted, one way or another, the decision of court, so I would certainly appreciate it if you stopped lying about what I have said.

I don’t think she understands enough about the Constitution and the Court’s logical interpretation of it to make rational predictions about the future of civil rights in America.

#2: I have forgotten more about the Constitution, it’s history, and the deliberations surrounding it, than you have ever known. You have proven, on more than one occasion, that you are historically illiterate.

The Roberts Court found that the 14th Amendment trumped the 10th Amendment when the latter’s protection of states’ rights infringed on the 14th amendments equal protection.

While John Roberts is, in fact, Chief Justice, the court has now become the Kennedy Court. One man, Justice Kennedy, has turned the Constitution on its head with the willing assistance of the three liberal women who set on the court. Issuing decisions based on “penumbras” and “foreign law” shows just how far this court has deviated from the Constitution.

Marriage laws were never the purview of the SCOTUS. You can argue to hell freezes over that it is, but then, why are states allowed to set regulations that mandate age, blood tests, witnesses, waiting time for licenses, cost of license, et al? Because marriage is a 10th Amendment issue and not a 14th Amendment issue. And there is no way anyone, who has read the Congressional record of the 14th Amendment debate can apply it so sexual preferences.

You may think this is settled law. So did the proponents of Dred Scott.

@retire05 #101:

“I never predicted, one way or another, the decision of court, so I would certainly appreciate it if you stopped lying about what I have said.”

You said that Kennedy wouldn’t vote against states’ rights, and gave a recent vote of his as evidence to that effect. And before you ask for a link to your statement, let me remind you that the FA archive is still not accessible. I can no more supply you with a quote than you can prove that you DIDN’T say it. But that doesn’t mean that you made no such prediction. I’ll just remind anyone who might actually believe you that Retire05 has been aggressively opposing same-sex marriage from the start, and that her opposition would likely have been less audible had she really believed that the courts would have favored it so overwhelmingly. It is logical to suggest that she BELIEVED that her position would be upheld by the courts, not overturned. After her Hobby Lobby victory, she had reason to suggest that a similar liberal defeat was in store for the gay marriage case. She cannot prove otherwise, and she cannot offer a reason why she would think otherwise. She HAS said that she “didn’t have a crystal ball,” but she only made that statement after reputable Court observers publicly suggested – after the Obergefell arguments – that it APPEARED that the Court would decide in Obergefell’s favor.

“Because marriage is a 10th Amendment issue and not a 14th Amendment issue. And there is no way anyone, who has read the Congressional record of the 14th Amendment debate can apply it so sexual preferences.”

The congressional record of the 14th amendment debate isn’t the law, the 14th amendment is.

“why are states allowed to set regulations that mandate age, blood tests, witnesses, waiting time for licenses, cost of license, et al?”

Because those regulations DO NOT INFRINGE upon equal protection guarantees. Within a state, each of them are applied to each and every citizen equally. I know that you have argued that same-sex-marriage prohibitions applied to all citizens equally, but the Court’s majority didn’t see it that way. The Loving case decided that marriage was a fundamental right of all citizens, even though interracial marriage prohibitions applied equally to everyone. In the same-sex-marriage case, if old heterosexual couples have the right to marry because they love each other and no other reason is necessary, then gay couples have the same right. So decided the court.

It must be achingly disappointing to be so consistently wrong. You should move to Uganda, Iran, Russia or North Korea, where your archaic views on homosexuality would be appreciated by repressive regimes. Aside from Uganda, your Christian perspective would be unwelcome, however. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, as it were.

@George Wells:

You said that Kennedy wouldn’t vote against states’ rights, and gave a recent vote of his as evidence to that effect. And before you ask for a link to your statement, let me remind you that the FA archive is still not accessible. I can no more supply you with a quote than you can prove that you DIDN’T say it. But that doesn’t mean that you made no such prediction.

Quite the convenient excuse for you that you can’t locate the actual thread so you could correctly quote me. But your retelling of the conversation doesn’t make it accurate.

I remember the conversation quite well. I said I didn’t know how the case would turn out (I never second guess the SCOTUS due to its construct) but that Kennedy had, in the past, ruled on the side of the 10th Amendment. I never cited the case where Kennedy ruled on the side of the 10th, and your fairy tales are just that.

I’ll just remind anyone who might actually believe you that Retire05 has been aggressively opposing same-sex marriage from the start, and that her opposition would likely have been less audible had she really believed that the courts would have favored it so overwhelmingly.

I see you’ve taken to offering only hypotheticals again.

It is logical to suggest that she BELIEVED that her position would be upheld by the courts, not overturned.

You have nothing, NOTHING, to base that assumption on.

After her Hobby Lobby victory, she had reason to suggest that a similar liberal defeat was in store for the gay marriage case. She cannot prove otherwise, and she cannot offer a reason why she would think otherwise.

I don’t believe I ever discussed the Hobby Lobby case. Again, the onus is on you to prove I did. You really should not make specious claims you cannot back up, George.

She HAS said that she “didn’t have a crystal ball,” but she only made that statement after reputable Court observers publicly suggested – after the Obergefell arguments – that it APPEARED that the Court would decide in Obergefell’s favor.

True. I did say I didn’t have a crystal ball when it comes to the rulings of the SCOTUS. Which, logically, means that I would not have proffered an opinion, one way or the other, on the outcome and completely destroys your position that I did.

The congressional record of the 14th amendment debate isn’t the law, the 14th amendment is.

You are claiming that construction is moot to completion. Thousands of historians and archeologists would disagree with that concept. Hundreds of legal arguments have been based on the construction of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in order to clarify the true meaning of said documents. Again, your opinion is the polar opposite of reality.

George, I highly recommend you up your dose of Aracept. Making things up, fabrication, does not a fact make.

And why are YOU still debating the subject if you feel like queers have won and the discussion is now ended?