Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And with that what Sil thought was sure would happen goes right down the toilet, and the SC rules for equality by not getting in the way, nor did they do more than they had to that might have caused a Roe-style blow-back.Ah, but that was then and this is now. Times have changed. And so apparently has the demeanor of SCOTUS towards the individual voters of Utah. It acted to protect their rights to self-rule in the interim. Their right to self-rule is unquestioned and can never be questioned unless Loving applies. Which it hasn't yet to "gay marriage". Or if it has, granting Utah the stay is SCOTUS de facto overruling of that finding by a lower court in favor of self-rule.The trial of facts is that you know the system has already ruled against such standing.
Ask WorldWatcher if you don't understand.
Back to California now. Since that stay was granted in Utah, all 50 states voters have the right to appeal for clarity on whether or not their vote on defining marriage in their state counts as well. And that's a rhetorical question because you and I both know about the equal application of civil rights across the 50 states. No favoritism.
So in short, SCOTUS' granting the stay to Utah is the same as them granting the stay in all 50 states because of the civil rights of voters. Those can NEVER be disenfranchised or given special bias state to state ...even for 5 minutes, 5 weeks, 5 months or 5 years...
Indeed! Time to grow up little homophobes, the SC has spoken by not speaking. Messages don't get much louder than that.A good day for America and those Americans who love it.
(CNN) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it is staying out of the same-sex marriage debate — at least for now.
The high court rejected requests from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin to immediately review their bans on gays and lesbians from civil wedlock.
The brief order from the justices denying review of pending appeals came as a surprise to many advocates on both sides. Many wanted the court to jump in now and offer a definitive, binding ruling on key constitutional questions.
At issue is whether homosexuals in all 50 states have the same equal protection or due process right as opposite-sex couples to marry.
The denial of judicial review may be just a temporary move.
Four federal appeals courts in recent months have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, but the issue continues to percolate in other courts nationwide.
The justices may wait until more lower court rulings are issued, to give them a fuller picture of the legal boundaries posed by same-sex marriage.
Legal and political experts expect the high court to eventually decide the core constitutional questions, but that may not happen for several months at least.
Same-sex marriage is currently banned in 31 states. BREAKING Supreme Court denies gay marriage appeals from Wisconsin four other states FOX6Now.com
Bump.Indeed! Time to grow up little homophobes, the SC has spoken by not speaking. Messages don't get much louder than that.A good day for America and those Americans who love it.
Actually it's not going to change a damn thing. Nearly everyone but you saw it coming. All those posts of yours trying to convince everyone differently, and we were dead on.Here's what actually happened. I didn't think SCOTUS would hear the case now anyway on the eve of an election...too politically heated.
(CNN) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it is staying out of the same-sex marriage debate — at least for now.
The high court rejected requests from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin to immediately review their bans on gays and lesbians from civil wedlock.
The brief order from the justices denying review of pending appeals came as a surprise to many advocates on both sides. Many wanted the court to jump in now and offer a definitive, binding ruling on key constitutional questions.
At issue is whether homosexuals in all 50 states have the same equal protection or due process right as opposite-sex couples to marry.
The denial of judicial review may be just a temporary move.
Four federal appeals courts in recent months have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, but the issue continues to percolate in other courts nationwide.
The justices may wait until more lower court rulings are issued, to give them a fuller picture of the legal boundaries posed by same-sex marriage.
Legal and political experts expect the high court to eventually decide the core constitutional questions, but that may not happen for several months at least.
Same-sex marriage is currently banned in 31 states. BREAKING Supreme Court denies gay marriage appeals from Wisconsin four other states FOX6Now.com
If anything, I'd be worried if I were a democratic strategist. This act of hubris will be seen as a liberal move in the Court. And that will net oh, so many republican votes. It will be a republican Congress now for sure. Moreso than even most suspected.
Democrats are dumb. They really bite at that lure every time. It's like fishing for stocked catfish at night with stinky cheese bait.
I'm not sure what drugs you're on. But this didn't change anything at all. They merely punted the pressure away from the 32 states asking for appeals to be clarified. And anything that looks like a liberal move on this topic on the eve of an election is nothing you should be celebrating. How much traction do you think gay marriage and the gay cult legal moves in general are going to get with a republican-dominated Congress?Sil, you were going to lose period, because your philosophy was flawed. Your hubris was not able to accept that.
The short term will guarantee the Senate for the GOP this fall, and in 2016 the Dems will sweep everything if the GOP does not reach out to the other side.
Here's what actually happened. I didn't think SCOTUS would hear the case now anyway on the eve of an election...too politically heated.
Yes, but the ANNOUNCEMENT now that they'd be taking it up would send riffles politically. And pressures. And stampedes of all descriptions. They don't want any of that right now. All they need is a good polygamist lawsuit in California and for the dems, it's game-over...Here's what actually happened. I didn't think SCOTUS would hear the case now anyway on the eve of an election...too politically heated.
Hornswoggle.
The SCOTUS wouldn't be hearing the case "now" on the "eve" of an election. It's already October, the case would be argued before the court until after the November 4th General Election and a decision wouldn't likely be issued until next June (the court has a habit of waiting until the end of the term to issue rulings on major cases).
There would still be months of pleadings, response to pleadings, and amicus briefs before oral arguments would have been held.
>>>>
You have to give her credit, she doesn't just swim in the river of Denial, she's made herself Queen.Here's what actually happened. I didn't think SCOTUS would hear the case now anyway on the eve of an election...too politically heated.
Hornswoggle.
The SCOTUS wouldn't be hearing the case "now" on the "eve" of an election. It's already October, the case would be argued before the court until after the November 4th General Election and a decision wouldn't likely be issued until next June (the court has a habit of waiting until the end of the term to issue rulings on major cases).
There would still be months of pleadings, response to pleadings, and amicus briefs before oral arguments would have been held.
>>>>
We'll discuss three, when two is legal everywhere. With the SC "ruling" today, it's pretty damn close. And that version of equality little Sil, won't change a damn thing either because they have decades to kick that can down the road. We haven't had more than two here as legal for a very long time.Yes, but the ANNOUNCEMENT now that they'd be taking it up would send riffles politically. And pressures. And stampedes of all descriptions. They don't want any of that right now. All they need is a good polygamist lawsuit in California and for the dems, it's game-over...Here's what actually happened. I didn't think SCOTUS would hear the case now anyway on the eve of an election...too politically heated.
Hornswoggle.
The SCOTUS wouldn't be hearing the case "now" on the "eve" of an election. It's already October, the case would be argued before the court until after the November 4th General Election and a decision wouldn't likely be issued until next June (the court has a habit of waiting until the end of the term to issue rulings on major cases).
There would still be months of pleadings, response to pleadings, and amicus briefs before oral arguments would have been held.
>>>>
We'll discuss three, when two is legal everywhere. With the SC "ruling" today, it's pretty damn close.
.
