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

No, undoubtedly the question was never adjudicated before.
That still doesn't explain a magical Constitutional justification for same sex marriage that wasn't there when Kagan was being confirmed yet was there when the SCOTUS ruled on the matter quite recently.

So let me ask you again: Was she lying then? Or is she lying now?

I get the feeling you aren't feigning anything. This really isn't about how court rulings work per se however.
It's about finding justification in the Constitution for a political agenda when it suits your needs. You may one day get on the right track once you figure out what is truly the issue here.

Explain how Kagan could find no Constitutional justification for gay marriage when being considered for confirmation yet she could when she made the court and the issue came before her.

Or did she vote to deny gay marriage based on that lack of Constitutional justification? I should check the vote tally perhaps.

An intense desire to get your way can cause one to stretch and distort the record. But there is no way a Constitutional basis for gay marriage can not exist at one time...and then exist at another. It just can't!

It's there or it isn't. It isn't there or it is.

 

There is no explicit right to marriage in the constitution. It is only inferred silly.

 

This isn't hard. When she was asked there wasn't a right. When the case was judged, they found there was.

Asked and answered.

Huh? The 14th amendment is perfectly clear.

I know the issue. You are butt hurt because you can't thumb your nose as a class of people you feel are inferior to you, and that they now have equal rights.

She wasn't asked to find one when being confirmed. She was asked if there currently was one. Again, this is not hard.

Huh?

There was no constitutional right for a black man to marry a white woman prior to loving v Virginia. This is no different.

Please stop pretending to be ignorant of court precedents.

 

At this point I have ask all the conservative posters in this forum.

How many times must you be burnt by quoting some conservative web site somewhere only to find out they are outright lying to you? Time and time again I see you guys quote the inaccuracies and lies of these websites and time and time again they make you look foolish because they lie. At what point do you begin to their validity before you post on them?

Here are excerpts from the real transcript and a link to whole transcript as well as Senator Cornyn's written questionnaire. As you can see the reported question and answer never occurs.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Written_Cornyn.pdf

file:///C:/Users/byrnes/Downloads/CHRG-111shrg67622.pdf

 

Oh...so the majority of the court discovered there was a right to gay marriage
that was there all along.
So I guess Elena Kagan just never realized it when John Cornyn asked her point blank if there was
a federal Constitutional right to same sex marriage? Because she said there was not!

Is that what you'd like everyone to believe? That a future Supreme Court justice was totally ignorant as to
the Constitution and the issue of gay marriage? Really? Really?

Senator John Cornyn: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Kagan: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Your answers are disingenuous dodges, unfortunately.
Let me make it easy for you: Did the Constitution change in between the time Kagan was being confirmed and the recent SCOTUS same sex marriage?

One would think. Why was it so mysterious to Elena Kagan then when she was being questioned before confirmation?
Just admit she lied her ass off in order to get on the court as a supposed impartial justice of the court.

Your petty personal insults can't cover up the gaping hole in your so called argument. Kagan found no right in the Constitution for federally guaranteed gay marriage when asked about it...then she did.
Did Kagan change or the Constitution? Which do you think is more likely? Be honest, please.

Your use of the word "currently" is what's so disingenuous (which is a nice word for you know what). I didn't see in John Conryn's question about justification in the Constitution for same sex marriage the word "currently" anywhere. Where do you see it?
He asked Elena Kagan to simply declare if there was Constitutional justification for same sex marriage or not. Period! Either it was there when she said it wasn't or it's not there now after she's claimed it is....which is it?

Yes there was! There is the problem...you just are hopelessly lost when it comes to Constitutional law. The right exists or it doesn't whether the court has ruled on it or not.

Or (OR) the court just invents laws out of whole cloth it would like to see (like interracial and gay marriage).

Why not take a break and go consider the issue? I know you really, really want gay marriage but a fundamental confusion over our Judiciary and how rights are established don't help you much.

.........

 

Repetition. I've dealt with all of this point by point already.

 

`
There never was such a thing as a "legal standard" for marriage. What Loving did was invalidate a states capricious miscegenation laws that make it illegal to enter in an interracial marriage.

 

I accept your surrender. Don't waste my time the next time you find yourself in over your head.

 

You said "there is no constitutional right to any kind of marriage". Adding the qualifier "explicit" now, to pretend you had a point then.

 

Lol, I refuted every point you made. And pointed out I'm not fooled by you pretending to be ignorant of judicial proceedings.

 

Please read the transcript of the hearing. The question was never asked nor answered the way it is portrayed by the OP. You are arguing about something that NEVER HAPPENED.

 

Define "refute" because merely disagreeing and insisting black is white is not the same as refuting (disproving) something.

Was Kagan lying when she said there was no Constitutional justification for same sex marriage? The justices that she all voted with seemed to find it in the Constitution to rule for marriage equality. Or does the justification truly not exist?
Maybe everyone is wrong but Kagan.

That's an example of the simple yes or no questions you refuse to answer. Therefore you lose and you forfeit the right to be taken seriously in this matter.

 

You seem to be the only person to feel this way and yet you haven't provided any counter evidence. Too bad.

 

Lol, I specifically addressed and refuted every point you made several times. I will not keep repeating the same refutation over and over. Just remind you it's been refuted.

Lol, report away.

 

In a confirmation hearing Elena Kagan told John Cornyn that there is no Constitutional justification for same sex marriage. Yet when a justice, she voted with the majority that magically discovered just such a justification.

Was she wrong before (saying there were no grounds for same sex marriage)?
Or is she wrong now (saying there are grounds in the Constitution for same sex marriage)?

Which is it? It can't be both.

 

What are you talking about? I gave you a link to Cornyn's questionnaire. I gave you link to the OFFICIAL SENATE TRANSCRIPT of the hearing. Neither of which have the question asked and answered as reported by the OP. What more "proof" do you need?

but here they are again.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/re...teasers/Supreme_Court_Nomination_Hearings.htm

 

What are you smoking? No one gave me a link to anything.

Given this, I see no reason why I should waste a second's time on your posts and nothing changes as far as I can see.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blog...itutional-right-same-sex-marriage_981272.html

 

See post #54 and I edited my last to include the transcript also. Search the pdf for marriage and his questionaire and you will find the question was never answered in the way reported in the OP.

 

Why do you keep asking for answers to questions that have already been answered?

 

That's not how the Weekly Standard sees it.
It seems like the simplest thing for you would be to copy and paste the appropriate verbiage. But you won't do that.

 

You aren't invited anymore as you refused to play fairly when you had the chance. So I invite you now to go away.

 

This goes directly to my first post thread. The whole thread is based on an intentionally misleading article. The article in the OP intimates that this a question posed to Kagan in her confirmation hearing for Supreme Court. When you did into and find that it isn't her confirmation for SCOTUS but her confirmation for Solicitor General. The context of the question was not on whether or not same-sex marriage is Constitutional but whether or not DOMA is Constitutional. In full context her answer is that she currently has NO OPINION on the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage or DOMA.



Again I ask the conservative posters in general in this forum...how many times must you be mislead by conservative web sites before you begin to question what is listed in them.

 

Lol, you have asked the same question 10 times even though it was answered the first time you asked.

I'll continue to remind you of that.

 

Read what I just posted. This whole thread based off a quote taken out of context from Kagan's confirmation hearing Solicitor General. I posted the whole series of question to place her answer in context of the hearing where she clearly states she currently does not have position on the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage or DOMA.

The Weekly Standard and other conservative press continually take things out of context and provide misleading information. At some point it is up to posters to verify this information lest perpetuate misinformation with the purpose of misleading...i.e. lie.

 

This is funny and desperate all at once.
Whether commenting on DOMA or same sex marriage (and as you know, it's all the same subject) Kagan undeniably stated that there was no federal Constitutional right to same sex marriage and I assume her
independently asserted opinion covers all matters whether she is Solicitor General or Supreme Court justice.

As you know her position in the federal government does not change the US Constitution itself. You are dismissed.