Advanced Calculus: The John Kasich Math & Saving the GOP Brand.

[Silhouette]

That's all well and good but Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court established gays right to marry in all states. No court can reverse that ruling except the Supreme Court. With gays marrying in all states and over 60% of Americans agreeing with the court, a reversal is very unlikely.

Indeed it was a landmark case. For the first time ever in American law, children's necessities from a contract they shared were given a back seat to adult lifestyle choices. Sorry kids! No mom or dad for you for life, bound in law!

Don't worry. There's some TNT under your landmark. It's called "New York vs Ferber (1982)"...

Kasich himself may be throwing his hands up in the air on Obergefell, but that doesn't mean plaintiffs in the near future will be. And I suspect Kasich will abide by THAT new Ruling as well. He's staying out of it. Suffice to say he won't be projecting a rainbow light display on the Executive branch, set up days before Obergefell came down. That would be an inappropriate instigation of the citizenry as to their perception of the different branches of government remaining separate for the purposes of checks and balances..

Yes, Obergefell was landmark too for the display of Executive pre-knowledge of how it would come down. Remember this, the same day Obergefell was announced? I do..

 

[Skylar]

That's all well and good but Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court established gays right to marry in all states. No court can reverse that ruling except the Supreme Court. With gays marrying in all states and over 60% of Americans agreeing with the court, a reversal is very unlikely.

Indeed it was a landmark case. For the first time ever in American law, children's necessities from a contract they shared were given a back seat to adult lifestyle choices. Sorry kids! No mom or dad for you for life, bound in law!

Save of course that same sex marriage doesn't produce the results you're complaining about. Same sex parenting does. As the tens of thousands of children of same sex parents demonstrate, marriage is utterly unnecessary to be a parent.

So are you arguing that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

Don't worry. There's some TNT under your landmark. It's called "New York vs Ferber (1982)"...

Nope. That's just another one of your pseudo-legal hallucinations. Ferber never so much as mentions marriage, let alone has any finding about it. You made all that up. And as your perfect record of failure with every legal prediction you've ever made demonstrates.......what you make up has nothing to do with any legal outcome.

Kasich himself may be throwing his hands up in the air on Obergefell, but that doesn't mean plaintiffs in the near future will be. And I suspect Kasich will abide by THAT new Ruling as well. He's staying out of it. Suffice to say he won't be projecting a rainbow light display on the Executive branch, set up days before Obergefell came down. That would be an inappropriate instigation of the citizenry as to their perception of the different branches of government remaining separate for the purposes of checks and balances..

There is no 'new ruling'. You've hallucinated that too.

Yes, Obergefell was landmark too for the display of Executive pre-knowledge of how it would come down. Remember this, the same day Obergefell was announced? I do..

Sil...pretty much everyone knew how the ruling was going to go. Even Scalia did, insisting that state same sex marriage laws being overturned was 'inevitable'.

You didn't know for the same reason you were certain Trump was going to lose New York: you assume the future will follow your desires. And ignore all evidence that contradicts you. Even when you have to ignore Scalia to do it.

Your willful blindness doesn't translate into a constitutional crisis....or another one of your batshit conspiracy theories. Just you, not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Aikawarazu.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, everyone pretty much did know how the decision would come down since two of the Justices (as living embodiments of the last stop in federal justice) were openly performing "gay weddings" as the question was pending before their Court. That question being "should the Fed overrule (preside over the) states on gay marriage?".....

...Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal (2009 USSC) states that any judge who the public would have reason to believe would be biased on a case, must recuse themselves from that case.

Be that as it may, that Obergefell was a mistrial, even if Obama had clear "thumbs up" from two of the Justices, there were still 7 more supposedly undecided before the Hearing...as the law requires them to be. That "everyone pretty much knew how the case would come down" IS THE ISSUE OF WRONGDOING. Nobody should know how a case will come down before it does. Especially at the SCOTUS level. And the executive should N-E-V-E-R give the impression that it was "in the know" before the case was decided!!

Everyone pretty much knew...yes...that is the essence of the treachery right there...

 

[Skylar]

Yes, everyone pretty much did know how the decision would come down since two of the Justices (as living embodiments of the last stop in federal justice) were openly performing "gay weddings" as the question was pending before their Court. That question being "should the Fed overrule (preside over the) states on gay marriage?".....

Alas, you forgot one small detail: the weddings officiated were in states that had already voted same sex marriage in. And Windsor makes it ludicrously clear that the States have every authority to decide that same sex marriage should be authorized.

56 times, as you've noted yourself. Thus, there were no states to 'overrule'. As the states in question had already decided for themselves. Killing your argument.

...Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal (2009 USSC) states that any judge who the public would have reason to believe would be biased on a case, must recuse themselves from that case.

Nope. Caperton was about an elected judge who had received major contributions from a party to a case the judge was adjudicating.

The Supreme Court judges aren't elected. They've received no campaign contributions. Nor have they received anything from any party to the Obergefell decision. Killing your argument yet again.

Be that as it may, that Obergefell was a mistrial, even if Obama had clear "thumbs up" from two of the Justices, there were still 7 more supposedly undecided before the Hearing...as the law requires them to be. That "everyone pretty much knew how the case would come down" IS THE ISSUE OF WRONGDOING. Nobody should know how a case will come down before it does. Especially at the SCOTUS level. And the executive should N-E-V-E-R give the impression that it was "in the know" before the case was decided!!

Of course it wasn't a 'mistrial'. You don't have a clue what a 'mistrial' is. You didn't see the Obergefell ruling coming because you equate your desires with the future. Where any outcome must match what you want to happen.

Alas, that's not how reality works. The evidence is what suggests future outcomes. With the evidence of the Obergefell ruling coming down in favor of same sex marriage being so varied and vast that you'd have to be blind to have missed them. For example, Justice Scalia's dissent in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by "‘bare . . . desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

The words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' would have been your first clue. But you insisted that Scalia was wrong, and you knew better.

So....um, how'd that work out for you?

Everyone pretty much knew...yes...that is the essence of the treachery right there...

That's the essence of your willful ignorance. You ignored anything that didn't affirm what you wanted to believe.

The rest of us didn't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

John Kasich is more of the same... the ultimate DC insider.
A RINO by any description. The man is delusional

But he IS the Cheney-Rove pick....