Supreme Court races the clock on same-sex marriage, Obamacare and more

by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY  |  published on June 14, 2015

635695472315997427-AP-Supreme-Court-Gay-Marriage-001WASHINGTON — The future of same-sex marriage and President Obama’s health care law hang in the balance as the Supreme Court’s 2014 term draws rapidly to a close this month. But those aren’t the only big issues on the justices’ plate.

Free speech and fair elections. Religious liberty and racial discrimination. Clean air and capital punishment. All await rulings over the next three weeks as the court completes action on 20 cases remaining this term. The next decisions will come Monday morning.

Here’s a look at the Elite Eight:

  • reagangs

    1) The gays, ledsbos & gender confused (glgc):: Personally, I don’t care. I’m a closet Tea Party, straight, conventionally married, socially & spending conservative, gun toting, Bible thumping, quiet, Caucasian retired male veteran that would rather the radical liberal, progressive glgcs go back into the closet and quit pissing us off. You are in the ultra small minority, so get over yourself.
    2) ObummerCare:: It seems that there are just as many Americans that a) still can’t afford it, b) don’t want it, c) want what they had before as there were before it. The supposition that everybody would participate was the major flaw that the social engineers some how missed (Knowns and Unknowns). But that’s what social engineers do, screw up.
    3) lethal injections:: There’s way too much energy being wasted on this issue. One .22 long rifle to the forehead will do the same thing but much quicker, no pain will be felt. Very simple ….. and cheap and plentiful.
    All of other stuff can be tossed out with the garbage.

  • John VanderKelen

    With or without Obamacare people will become sick and die. Marriage was established by God; one man , one woman for life, until death. More wisdom emanates from the Bible than all the Supreme Court justices combined and is available to anyone with understanding.

    • reagangs

      Kinda like the VA. Long wait times …. long travel distances …. dropping in the waiting rooms. Only very few politicos and/or unelected bureaucrats ever get to experience the VA.

  • The redhawk

    OK Roberts, time to UNSCREW the SCREW up you Caused last time on ODUMBOCARE!!! Redeem yourself!!

  • jdbixii

    Stupidity and immorality are legal, although both are violations of the “higher law.” In accommodating the two under statutory law, there is a seeming diminution of the purpose for an entity and its improvement, which, both education and instruction in morality and ethics must have as a goal. Isn’t it a waste to consider issues which affirm the right or freedom of choice to be purposeless, wasteful or negative? Some people engage in behaviors the purposes of which will not change with recognition or affirmation of them by the legal system. Non-discrimination on the basis of humanity, rather than discrimination on the basis of sex, is the “higher law.” Denigrating the concept on the basis of a difference in sexual behavior, denying the “higher law” based in qualified morality, affirms an inability to discriminate, which, when represented in constitutional law, merely affirms a legal right or ability to do something which has been deemed “wrong” by “higher law.”
    Considering the cost of the consequences of such behaviors, shouldn’t the state affirm the sensibility of “higher law” and encourage the pervasiveness of it in the constitutional laws of the state? To affirm the right to be stupid and immoral without considering the cost of the consequences of such stupidity and immorality for society is not a logical reason-for-being of government. Such behaviors will be exercised anyway, regardless of the acknowledgement or affirmation by the state of a legal right to them.
    Allowing that some people are created “less equal” than others based on a preponderance of evidence proving that certain behaviors are more purposeful, hence, legal, than others, which, because they have no obvious, beneficial purpose, are considered wasteful and too costly to affirm as “legal.” If the constitutionality of a behavior or action were contingent or dependent on its ability to be paid for, there would be a lot less crime.

  • Is it possible the Supreme Court will make the right decisions, or will they go with the rest of the government, and make them based on what they think is GOOD for the government? I am waiting with baited breath!

Google Analytics Alternative