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

What are you talking about? The context of the question and answer are clear. SHE EXPRESSED NO OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

The whole premise of your argument is built on a lie being perpetuated by conservative media sources. There is nothing to dismiss because there is no argument. If your initial claim is based on known falsehood then your entire argument is moot.

You are not in the position to dismiss anyones comment. That is an extremely arrogant position. Especially for someone that is arguing in favor of a lie.

 

The problem is you keep pointing to this egregiously error filled notion, as if it makes sense or isn't duplicitous nonsense, and it is.

"No it wasn't. She was asked if there was a constitutional right to same sex marriage. At the time there wasn't."

So, yes you have answered but all your answers are fundamentally wrong and based on nonsense.

At the time Kagan replied to Conryn the US Constitution is exactly as it is now and not a thing in it has changed
that would materially alter what Kagan said.
So the question remains the same: Was Kagan wrong when she said there is no Constitutional basis for same sex marriage? Or is she wrong now that says there is a Constitutional basis for same sex marriage?

That's a simple yes/no answer even you should be able to manage.

 

Repetition. Your question was answered already. And it's been pointed out to you the statement made in the OP and the statement you are arguing about never took place.

 

That's a very "convincing" debate tactic to take someone else's discredited mistakes and adopt them as your own about a dozen posts into a failed argument.
It's a good illustration of how utter your failure is.

 

Lol, it's right there in black and white. You are willfully arguing a proven lie.

 

Actually, the first sentence of the article,

"Over at the blog Legal Insurrection, law professor William Jacobson reminds us of this answer Elena Kagan gave to Senator John Cornyn in her confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General in 2009:"

???? uuuuh you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*). The questions were

"let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage? "

" Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? "

"the Massachusetts supreme court ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the Massachusetts constitution. Do you agree with that ruling? "

 

She sure did, whether specifically or not, when she freely admitted there was no Constitutional right to same sex marriage.
You take out a supposed Constitutional basis for marriage equality and the whole rationale used by the SCOTUS majority falls apart. Period!

Yeah...IF. But it isn't, and even if Kagan was asked about the Constitutionality of same sex marriage in the context of a discussion about baseball or ice cream or the swimming ability of ducks her freely given answer about marriage equality would still stand as a baseline view on the issue by Kagan (a view that she later rejected by siding with the majority court opinion).

So did she lie when answering Conryn? Or did she lie when she signed onto the recent SCOTUS gay marriage decision? It has to be one or the other.

It's not arrogant at all based on your error riddled posts.
And your talk about someone arguing in favor of a lie is just ironically comical.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you. Finally another voice of sanity and reason here.

 

That was not in the "article" linked in the OP. The linked article in the OP clearly gives the impression that this was from her SCOTUS confirmation. This is confirmed by everyone assuming that in this thread. This was not the case. Even if it was in full context the contention that her position was that she believed the Constitution did not contain a right to same-sex marriage is false. In full context is clear she means currently their is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage and pressed for a position she clearly states she currently has NO POSITION on the matter at present.

- - - Updated - - -

And please pot her answers to those questions. In which she clearly states SHE HAS NO OPINION ON THE MATTER.

 

Again she did not lie. Her answers were clear. She stated there was no current Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That was a true statement. When pressed on additional questions on the matter she clearly states she currently HAS NO OPINION ON THE MATTER.

Again your contention is based on an original falsehood ergo your points are false. The OP was clearly based on an "article" that was intentionally misleading i.e. a lie.

 

Yeah, sure........
I made I sure I copied your exact quote in my post so everyone could see what you are trying to get away with.

You are trying to say this since the Supreme Court had not yet found in favor of gay marriage, Elena Kagan could correctly state that there was no Constitutional basis for legalizing same sex, which is utter bull (*)(*)(*)(*) and easily disproven considering that's exactly what SCOTUS did...found a basis in the Constitution on which they could legalize same sex marriage across the nation. DUH!

This is so tiresome.

 

No, no and no again.
You are running the same mistaken bit of ignorance as you ideologically fraudulent friend.

Kagan was asked point blank if there was any Constitutional basis on which one could claim it authorized same sex marriage. The word "current" was not in the question or the response (so there is the blatant lie) and presumably you realize the Constitution did not change between Kagan's confirmation hearing and the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage.

Stop destroying your own credibility (such as it is).

 

You mad bro?

We told you for years what was going to happen. You didn't believe us. Guess what? To bad for you.

 

I am not destroying my own credibility. By perpetuating known inaccuracies you are doing that to yourself. That being said...

You apparently have 0 ability for inference in context. The question was asked in the context of defending DOMA and if she would be able to do that as the Solicitor General and asked if she thought in reference to defending DOMA that if a Constitutional right exists for same-sex marriage. If she is being honest she would have had to no such right exists because at the time no right did exist as the Courts had not ruled on the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage at the time. Again she was asked this question in reference to defending DOMA as the Solicitor General. That is a legal question not a Constitutional question. At the time no legal right to same-sex marriage existed. She answered honestly. This isn't a difficult inference.

Second, based on the two follow on questions it was clear that Cornyn was first asking her as a legal question if Constitutional right existed. This is clear because he then follows up and asks her the Constitutional question if she believes the Constitution could be read to infer such a right to same-sex marriage. She clearly answers that question as having NO OPINION on the matter. If Cornyn was asking in the first question if she believes same-sex marriage was Constitutional then there would be no need for the follow question of whether or not she would infer such right in the Constitution. Again this is not a difficult concept to follow. Basic reading comp and contextual inference clearly indicates the first question was a legal question. The second question was Constitutional interpretation question and the third question was further expounding on the Constitutional interpretation theme.

 

Give them a break... First they lost the right to oppress jews, then they lost the right to oppress blacks, then they lost the right to oppress women and now they lost the right to oppress the gays... You're removing all the fun in their life. I wonder who's next now...

 

No doubt you'd go after the guy who left the liberal plantation, some might think that's racist...

 

I thought OP referred to other post.

Was there someone other than you who brought that up, or are you alone on that one? NOTHING in the article linked to in the first post gives that impression and clicking on the included linked to legalinsurrection article clearly states it was her hearings for nomination as solicitor.

You are still full of (*)(*)(*)(*). She quite clearly and explicitly stated there was not a Constituional Right to same sex marriage. AND that she had no position on the Massachusetts STATE Constitution and court case.

 

Absurd, this belief that marriages limitation to husband and wife is all just a nefarious plot to oppress the gays.

 

Willfully arguing a proven lie.

 

Actually they had in Baker v Nelson. Thats why Kennedy had to over rule Baker v Nelson in his opinion. Was kind of pointless as the lower Federal Courts creating a right to gay marriage had all disregarded the decision already. Kennedy was covering their tracks for them.

Yeah, because her and her 4 buddies hadnt yet created, what previously didnt exist. And he didnt ask her if there was a "legal" right to same sex marriage and was instead very explicitly asked if there was a "Constitutional" right to same sex marriage.

And again, you are making this (*)(*)(*)(*) up. She had no opinion on Mass. STATE Constitution and case decided under it.

 

In defense of Kagan, she could not have been lying and is instead now admitting that she believes the Supreme Court is free to create Constitutional rights that didnt previously exist.

 

Kagan was asked point blank by Conryn, yes or no, is there a federal Constitutional right to same sex marriage (in the context of enforcing anti gay marriage DOMA laws)?
Are you really trying to BS your way through this or perhaps you think the 14th Amendment was suspended while Kagan was being grilled?

Because, without a doubt, a Constitutional right guaranteeing gay marriage has always been in existence (though not yet codified and tested in law) and the proof is the SCOTUS justices indeed used the Constitution as the rationale for legalizing same sex marriage. How does anyone get around that obvious truth? I couldn't say.

It goes without saying that justices cannot rule on the legality of same sex marriage without the concept of equal protection under the law long as expressed in the 14th Amendment (just at the case with interracial marriage).
It's equally obvious that the Constitution enshrined equal protection under the law long before the drive for gay marriage ever existed

So I couldn't possibly guess why Kagan said no such Constitutional protections existed unless perhaps she was being self serving in literally replying to a question that, as a prospective Solicitor General, she knew might hurt her confirmation chances if she answered in any other way. http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

In any event to try and convince living, breathing thinking people that she was unaware of the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law and the effect it might have on coming marriage equity issues before the court is absurd.

 

Nice.

Now, answer the question, or admit you've got nothing.

 

NO. That's not what she said but of course you can't admit it.
She was asked by Cornyn if there was a Constitutional right to same sex marriage. Period!
Please point out in this verbatim sentence where John Cornyn asked about "current" Constitutional rights to gay marriage. "Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?"

You guys are rather sad with your denial and inventions and you are literally lying when you continue to misrepresent the facts.

She actually stated she had never expressed an opinion on the matter before.
Not quite the same thing and more dishonesty. http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

And again that's simply not literally true but even if you were right, it's immaterial as Conryn was questioning Kagan on the legalization of gay marriage as a potential defender of DOMA laws (as Solicitor General) and his question about the Constitutional authority given to marriage equality is absolutely on point and issue.

What a give away and how desperate can you be?

 

Right to due process is a topic in section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Read the amendment

 

There is something very sad about someone denying his own posted words.