9th Circuit Assumes Legislative Power In Same Sex Marriage Case

[Vigilante]

Mark says that regardless of what you may think about marriage, this is an attack on the Constitution and of state and individual rights.

Given that neither the constitution nor the state nor the individual have the authority to violate someone else's rights, that entire line of reasoning gets tossed on the midden heap where it belongs.

What else you got?

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

 

[Skylar]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

 

[Vigilante]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

 

[Silhouette]

Children aren't a requirement to marry in any state. Nor is the ability to have a children. What you're proposing is that we make up a legal standard that applies to no one, apply it only to gays and then exclude them from marriage because of it.

...Perhaps. Or perhaps he will do exactly what he did with Utah. Issue the stay and then deny the appeal anyway. I dunno. You dunno.

I hope the Justices are paying close attention to how the cult of LGBT regards the rights and considerations of children with respect to marriage...

And actually I do know.. Kennedy denied the stay for Idaho just today, thus fostering more limbo and the spread of fascism of the few in black robes dictating to the tens/hundreds of millions who voted to limit marriage to between man/woman.

But in so doing, Kennedy has opened the barn door for polygamists. I can't wait to see the logic behind denying them now...

 

[Skylar]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible? Let me help you with that one....

....its not the Talk Show host.

 

[Skylar]

hope the Justices are paying close attention to how the cult of LGBT regards the rights and considerations of children with respect to marriage...

That's your personal obsession. And you know how poorly things work out for your when you start projecting your beliefs and prejudices onto everyone else. Remember your failure in predicting the outcome of Utah? I do. Resist the urge to assume that everyone is just you with a slightly different face. We're us. And most of us don't think like you do.

And actually I do know.. Kennedy denied the stay for Idaho just today, thus fostering more limbo and the spread of fascism of the few in black robes dictating to the tens/hundreds of millions who voted to limit marriage to between man/woman.

No you don't. What you consider 'knowledge' is what is known as 'imagination' outside your head. You're not going to be able to resist that urge to project your own beliefs onto other people, are you?

And as usual, you have no idea what fascism is.

 

[Vigilante]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible? Let me help you with that one....

....its not the Talk Show host.

A simply change in SCOTUS judges by the next Republican president can change everything! ....And it seems NO ONE wants to quit the bench yet!

 

[Skylar]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible? Let me help you with that one....

....its not the Talk Show host.

A simply change in SCOTUS judges by the next Republican president can change everything! ....And it seems NO ONE wants to quit the bench yet!

Unless it doesn't. But at least you're finally recognizing that Mark Levin won't be deciding jack shit. So that's a step in the right direction I suppose.

 

[Vigilante]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible? Let me help you with that one....

....its not the Talk Show host.

A simply change in SCOTUS judges by the next Republican president can change everything! ....And it seems NO ONE wants to quit the bench yet!

Unless it doesn't. But at least you're finally recognizing that Mark Levin won't be deciding jack shit. So that's a step in the right direction I suppose.

Why, his Landmark Legal Foundation has been doing some excellent work!

 

[Skylar]

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible? Let me help you with that one....

....its not the Talk Show host.

A simply change in SCOTUS judges by the next Republican president can change everything! ....And it seems NO ONE wants to quit the bench yet!

Unless it doesn't. But at least you're finally recognizing that Mark Levin won't be deciding jack shit. So that's a step in the right direction I suppose.

Why, his Landmark Legal Foundation has been doing some excellent work!

Because his 'Landmark Legal Foundation' doesn't define any legal term, adjudicate any case or grant any stay either.

 

[Vigilante]

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible? Let me help you with that one....

....its not the Talk Show host.

A simply change in SCOTUS judges by the next Republican president can change everything! ....And it seems NO ONE wants to quit the bench yet!

Unless it doesn't. But at least you're finally recognizing that Mark Levin won't be deciding jack shit. So that's a step in the right direction I suppose.

Why, his Landmark Legal Foundation has been doing some excellent work!

Because his 'Landmark Legal Foundation' doesn't define any legal term, adjudicate any case or grant any stay either.

No, it just wins decisions!

 

[Skylar]

No, it just wins decisions!

Obviously. Which is why Mark is lamenting about how badly his side has lost.

Get used to it. Even if Kennedy decides in favor of gay marriage bans (which he probably won't), gay marriage is still almost certain to be defacto legal everywhere. As there's virtually no chance that the courts are going to scrap 200 years of interstate reciprocity of marriage contracts. So a gay couple legally married in your neighborhood is only a plane ride away!

 

[Vigilante]

No, it just wins decisions!

Obviously. Which is why Mark is lamenting about how badly his side has lost.

Get used to it. Even if Kennedy decides in favor of gay marriage bans (which he probably won't), gay marriage is still almost certain to be defacto legal everywhere. As there's virtually no chance that the courts are going to scrap 200 years of interstate reciprocity of marriage contracts. So a gay couple legally married in your neighborhood is only a plane ride away!

Yes, we'll just have to wait until we can get some moral, ethical, and principled judges to rule on this topic!

 

[Skylar]

What is the statute number of the new law the court created?

That's the whole point..leftists find activist circuit/appeals court judges who'll rule in their favor on an issue and bypass the constitution.
Now we have a supreme court who are the real "legislators" in america...and just like all the politicians they've been compromised by NSA and they know that if they don't all march in step the world will learn their secrets.
That's why you see so many "about faces" by politicians and judges once they get the "message"

So we have a politicized group of activist judges bypassing the constitution and "making" de facto laws by choosing or refusing to hear certain cases.

Originally having 3 independent branches of government with a checks and balances system ensured that no one branch would accrue too much power....unfortunately our founding fathers couldn't foresee the day when ALL THREE branches of gvmt became corrupt and enabling to each other...At this point the system is corrupt beyond redemption and only a re set will correct it.....and that's coming....

Yeah, Judge Martin Feldman, a Reagan appointee, is just as liberal as they come.

 

[Rotagilla]

What is the statute number of the new law the court created?

That's the whole point..leftists find activist circuit/appeals court judges who'll rule in their favor on an issue and bypass the constitution.
Now we have a supreme court who are the real "legislators" in america...and just like all the politicians they've been compromised by NSA and they know that if they don't all march in step the world will learn their secrets.
That's why you see so many "about faces" by politicians and judges once they get the "message"

So we have a politicized group of activist judges bypassing the constitution and "making" de facto laws by choosing or refusing to hear certain cases.

Originally having 3 independent branches of government with a checks and balances system ensured that no one branch would accrue too much power....unfortunately our founding fathers couldn't foresee the day when ALL THREE branches of gvmt became corrupt and enabling to each other...At this point the system is corrupt beyond redemption and only a re set will correct it.....and that's coming....

Yeah, Judge Martin Feldman, a Reagan appointee, is just as liberal as they come.

The title of the thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“So, once again the court fails to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, and the court goes on to assume legislative power by second guessing the wisdom of legislation which is not the court’s function!”


Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment forbids the states from denying citizens equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case marriage law that same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

To perceive a Federal court's ruling based on the 14th Amendment and its case law as 'legislating' is ignorant and unfounded.

Moreover, the states in question knew at the time that the measures they enacted denying same-sex couples access to marriage law were likely un-Constitutional, those measures were enacted in bad faith, devoid of any 'wisdom,' consequently there was no 'second guessing' on the part of the court, where the states have only themselves to blame for their measures being invalidated. Indeed, had the states simply followed the Constitution and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law from the outset, there would have been no need for the courts to be involved.

Last, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, neither the states nor the people who reside within the states have the authority to deny American citizens their civil rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Ok smart ass, there is no possible answer to that question and you know it.
However, all you have to do is search for the 9th Circuit's decision which does essentially over turn a binding and legal legislative action. In effect, the 9th Circuit wrote new law without writing it. “


Also incorrect.

The states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction are subject to the rulings of that appellate court, and laws enacted by those states repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated accordingly.

Because the measures in question were enacted contrary to the Constitution and its case law, they were neither binding nor legal, where the responsibility for the measures being invalidated rests solely with the states, not the court.

That notion, therefore, that a Federal court invalidating a law offensive to the Constitution is to 'write a new law' remains ignorant and unfounded.

 

[johnwk]

I see you are still clinging to your interpretation of Senator Howard's comments while ignoring the mountain of evidence, including that of Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, which I provided you with and proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, your incorporation theory is a debunked myth.

These aren't interpretations, my little script reader. These are direct quotes.
.

I see you are still clinging to your interpretation of Senator Howard's comments while ignoring the mountain of evidence that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, your incorporation theory is a debunked myth!

It is absolutely amazing to think even the Supreme Court in the Twitch Case was ignorant of your assertion that the 14th Amendment made the federal Bill of Rights enforceable upon the states. Several months after the 14th Amendment was adopted the S.C. decided Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1869). Twitchell was convicted of murder which his lawyer appealed to the S. C. claiming the conviction relied upon violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court rejected the appeal by emphasizing the federal Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not the States. Did someone forget to tell the Supreme Court Justices that the 14th Amendment made the Fifth and Sixth Amendments enforceable upon the States?

And why would Congress debate and attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, The Blaine Amendment in 1876, making the First Amendment’s religious prohibition enforceable upon the States if the 14th Amendment already made the First Amendment enforceable upon the States as you suggest?


Heck, even in a dissenting opinion in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Justice Field establishes the connection between the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment’s intent to incorporate the Act's objectives into the Constitution, not the first ten amendments to our Constitution. He says:


What, then, are the privileges and immunities which are secured against abridgment by State legislation?

In the first section of the Civil Rights Act Congress has given its interpretation to these terms, or at least has stated some of the rights which, in its judgment, these terms include; it has there declared that they include the right 'to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.' That act, it is true, was passed before the fourteenth amendment, but the amendment was adopted, as I have already said, to obviate objections to the act, or, speaking more accurately, I should say, to obviate objections to legislation [83 U.S. 36, 97] of a similar character, extending the protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens of the United States. Accordingly, after its ratification, Congress re-enacted the act under the belief that whatever doubts may have previously existed of its validity, they were removed by the amendment.

It should further be noted that if the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to allow Congress and federal judges a power to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the States as you suggest, Congress was unaware of such intentions or they were derelict in their duties as there was no mention of this in the enforcement Acts Congress passed just after the 14th Amendment was adopted.


JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

 

[johnwk]

“So, once again the court fails to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, and the court goes on to assume legislative power by second guessing the wisdom of legislation which is not the court’s function!”


Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment forbids the states from denying citizens equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case marriage law that same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Instead of posting your opinion as to what the 14th Amendment forbids, perhaps you ought to read exactly what it says:

...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All that declares in the context of the amendment is, whatever laws a state passes any person is to get the equal protection of those laws.


If the supporters of homosexual “marriage” believe in our Constitutional system and the rule of law as opposed to embracing judicial tyranny, they would be advocating the adoption of an amendment to our Constitution such as:


No state shall make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license nor deny the equal protection of its laws within its jurisdiction to married couples.


Do you object to the constitutional manner to resolve the issue which is by a constitutional amendment?

JWK



Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

 

[johnwk]

I'll take Levin's opinion over yours!

And I'll take the court's over Mark's. As Mark defines jack shit when it comes to legal definitions, precedent, or adjudication. The law and the courts do.

Interpretation Skyhook, interpretation!

And who's interpretation is authoritative and legally enforcible?

The legitimate function of the court is to expound upon the Constitution, but in doing so there are specific rules which govern “constitutional construction”. And the most fundamental rule in expounding upon our Constitution is documenting its “legislative intent” as expressed during its framing and ratification process. This rule is expressed as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

The noteworthy Justice Story once asked, "[a]re the rules of the common law to furnish the proper guide, or is every court and department to give [the Constitution] any interpretation it may please, according to its own arbitrary will?" Fortunately our Constitution answers this very question by acknowledging an adherence to the rules of the “common law” [see Amendment VII].

Abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which a law is adopted is in fact rooted in English common law and dates back many hundreds of years and has over three hundred years of practice on American soil! Unfortunately our Courts have found a clever way to circumvent this fundamental rule by creating a number of “tests” unknown to our founding fathers and are used today to impose its will upon the people. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to an arbitrarily answered question having nothing to do with whether or not a law is in harmony with the legislative intent of our Constitution.

Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and dissolve our Constitution’s separation of powers!

Indeed, this violation took place when the 9th Circuit Court decided to judge if bans on same-sex couples promotes “the welfare of children, by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite sex families” instead of expounding upon the documented intentions of the 14th Amendment to support its arbitrary and erroneous conclusion, that the Idaho ban on sex-sex “marriage” is a “ violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968