pacino wrote:

Justice Antonin Scalia challenged lawyer Theodore B. Olson, who was arguing to overturn Prop 8 and have the court rule that there is a constitutional right to marriage that must include same-sex couples.

Scalia and other conservatives wondered how the Constitution could mandate a position on same-sex marriage, which, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. noted, did not exist before the year 2000.
“When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying?” Scalia asked

Olson said he could not answer the question precisely, but pointed repeatedly to the court’s decision in 1967 that wiped away state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Think Progress sez wrote:In other words, the most likely answer to the question of whether Prop 8 is unconstitutional is that the Supreme Court will not answer this question at all. Too many of the five justices who appeared open to marriage equality posed too many questions about whether now is the time to bring equality to the nation as a whole, and they did not appear satisfied with any of the theories offered to limit their decision to just some of the states.

Politico wrote:“The state’s interest, society’s interest in what we have framed as responsible procreation, is vital,” Cooper argued.

Justice Elena Kagan scoffed at the notion that the justification for marriage was limited to child-rearing. She noted that older people are permitted to marry even though they’re unlikely to reproduce.

“I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children are coming out of that marriage,” she said.

That prompted Scalia to jump in and suggest that the state might not want to invade people’s privacy by asking them for details like whether they’re fertile or not. He then quipped: “Strom Thurmond was not chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.” The joke did not draw much laughter.

Some of the most heated exchanges came as Scalia pressed Olson to explain precisely when limiting marriage to heterosexual couples became unconstitutional.

“I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? …. When did the law become this?” Scalia asked.

“May I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?” Olson replied.

Scalia said the answer was in 1868, with the passage of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, but he added: “Don’t give me a question to my question.”
After some sparring between the pair, Olson said the practice of barring gays from marrying became unconstitutional “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control.”

td11 wrote:AdamSerwer ‏@AdamSerwer 8m
Alito said there could be terrible consequences: Same sex marriage is younger than cell phones and the Internet...we can't see the future

wow

joe table wrote:http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2013/03/gruden-talk-jon-and-herm-discuss-gay-marriage-with-uc-irvine-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky.html

Jon: OF COURSE. HE WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF BUSH V. GORE AFTER ALL. COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE IRAQ WAR IF EVERYONE ELSE HAD AGREED WITH HIM. HE’S LIKE THAT REPLACEMENT REF WHO GOT OVERRULED ON THE FAIL MARY.

Herm: IF AL GORE WERE PRESIDENT THEN IRAN WOULD NOT BE A REGIONAL POWER.

Jon: HERM, SINCE WHEN DO YOU KNOW ABOUT GEOPOLITICS?

Herm: RED LOBSTER PLACEMAT.

pacino wrote:first they came for detroit, and i said nothing. then they came for camden, and i said nothing.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:first they came for detroit, and i said nothing. then they came for camden, and i said nothing.

They=Democrats who governed them into ruins after decades of shoddy management?

pacino wrote:so the people of these cities should have no say in their elected officials? democracy doesnt work!

of course, large systemic changes and macroeconomic changes have been the larger reasons for cities become impoverished, but we must take away democracy in order to save it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:so the people of these cities should have no say in their elected officials? democracy doesnt work!

of course, large systemic changes and macroeconomic changes have been the larger reasons for cities become impoverished, but we must take away democracy in order to save it.

The state pays for 6/7ths of Camden's school budget. Camden spends $23,709 per student per year. Camden graduates 49% of its students from high school.

The state's picking up almost all of the tab and the :results: are awful. The state taking over Camden's Board of Ed probably isn't going to fix anything either, but they're not gonna make things worse.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:so the people of these cities should have no say in their elected officials? democracy doesnt work!

of course, large systemic changes and macroeconomic changes have been the larger reasons for cities become impoverished, but we must take away democracy in order to save it.

The state pays for 6/7ths of Camden's school budget. Camden spends $23,709 per student per year. Camden graduates 49% of its students from high school.

The state's picking up almost all of the tab and the :results: are awful. The state taking over Camden's Board of Ed probably isn't going to fix anything either, but they're not gonna make things worse.

sort of beside my point. Put it up to a vote, then.