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.
Politics is driven by agenda. Judges are appointed base don politics and the agenda of the one appointing them. Don't understand that, not surprised.
Politics drives YOUR agenda. You're assuming that any decision you don't like must be similarly motivated.
Me, I have no horse in the 'gay marriage' debate. It doesn't really effect me personally. But I do have a horse in the race of rights and equal protection. Which is why I support gay marriage.
A judge motivated by the protection of constitutional guarantees isn't 'politically motivated'. They're doing their job.
They're interpreting the Constitution in a manner that fits their agenda.
And of course you fantasize that they have an agenda.
And you are so stupid you can't realize that it exists. All politics is based on an agenda even the side you agree with. Learn or live a miserable, retarded life.
Like I said- you fantasize that they have an agenda- because you can't imagine that anyone doesn't live their life and make their decisions like you do.
The discussion was about why posters like Syriusly and her sock puppets/co-workers here would deny polygamists' or incest children's "legal rights"...
SKYLAR, is simply another sheep accepting fiction and following and being led by ignorance, this is how tyranny succeeds.That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.
Skylar is reflecting what the courts are saying. You don't have to accept what the courts say, but if the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court in Alabama, gay couples will be marrying each other.
I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.
Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.
Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.
Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.
You're saying that 'same or simliar' to homosexual marriages also gaining a federal mandate is a strawman? Are you completely unaware of how precedents work?Who here can discuss the actual court cases before the judges without bringing up Strawmen?Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.
SKYLAR, is simply another sheep accepting fiction and following and being led by ignorance, this is how tyranny succeeds.Skylar is reflecting what the courts are saying. You don't have to accept what the courts say, but if the Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Court in Alabama, gay couples will be marrying each other.
I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.
Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.
Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.
Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.
Again, typical arrogant Liberal believing that what they think is the only way to think.
I ain't your buddy....I have been discussing the topic with you all morning, I just have other things more important than educating you. This does not mean that I will not check in and respond from time to time.I must end here, but at least use the proper abbreviation of the United States Supreme court. It is NOT the USSC, it is the SCOTUS. I cannot spend all my time in educating the ignorant.First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.
Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.
Um, so what?
That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.
I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.
With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.
Without exception.
So you ignored the 14th amendment, ignored the constitution, ignored decades of precedent, ignored 3 USSC cases explicitly contradicting you, and ignored virtually every federal court to hear challenges to same sex marriage bans overturning them....
......but you refuse to discuss the topic with me because you don't like the acronym I use for the Supreme Court?
Laughing....whatever gets you through the day, buddy.
You're saying that 'same or simliar' to homosexual marriages also gaining a federal mandate is a strawman? Are you completely unaware of how precedents work?.Who here can discuss the actual court cases before the judges without bringing up Strawmen?Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.
SKYLAR, is simply another sheep accepting fiction and following and being led by ignorance, this is how tyranny succeeds.
I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.
Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.
Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.
Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.
Again, typical arrogant Liberal believing that what they think is the only way to think.
No- I just know more about this subject than you do. You are welcome to your opinion- whatever that is- apparently your opinion revolves around every judge who you disagree with must be following a specific agenda- but don't expect your opinion will go unchallenged.
I must end here, but at least use the proper abbreviation of the United States Supreme court. It is NOT the USSC, it is the SCOTUS. I cannot spend all my time in educating the ignorant.Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:
You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.
Um, so what?
That it's laid out in the 14th amendment is YOUR opinion. That's your problem. You say it is and demand everyone accept what you say.
I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the federal judiciary. And they recognize violations of the 14th amendment as the basis of the overturning of state gay marriage bans.
With the USSC having preserved every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans.
Without exception.
So you ignored the 14th amendment, ignored the constitution, ignored decades of precedent, ignored 3 USSC cases explicitly contradicting you, and ignored virtually every federal court to hear challenges to same sex marriage bans overturning them....
......but you refuse to discuss the topic with me because you don't like the acronym I use for the Supreme Court?
Laughing....whatever gets you through the day, buddy.
The reality is that YOUR SCOTUS, POTUS and CONGRESS do as they choose because you would rather face fiction than reality, therefore you accept subjugation.
I simply know way more about this topic than you do. Which is why you've abandoned the topic....and started babbling about me.
Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.
Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.
Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.
Again, typical arrogant Liberal believing that what they think is the only way to think.
No- I just know more about this subject than you do. You are welcome to your opinion- whatever that is- apparently your opinion revolves around every judge who you disagree with must be following a specific agenda- but don't expect your opinion will go unchallenged.
You claim you know more. When you can prove it by something other than simply saying it, go ahead. Claims have to be supported and support doesn't come from a statement of saying you know more. Back it up son.
Apparently your opinion revolves around any judge agreeing with your opinion as not following an agenda.
You're saying that 'same or simliar' to homosexual marriages also gaining a federal mandate is a strawman? Are you completely unaware of how precedents work?Who here can discuss the actual court cases before the judges without bringing up Strawmen?Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.
The fake flame war between Conservative and Syriusly has been reported, as was their similar posting styles.
This topic is really bothering the cult. They're going manic at this point...ANYTHING to shut the topic down..
Again...thanks to spam...& fake flame wars..
You're saying that 'same or simliar' to homosexual marriages also gaining a federal mandate is a strawman?Who here can discuss the actual court cases before the judges without bringing up Strawmen?Who here thinks polygamists won't have legal marriage using the precedent of gay marriage as federally-mandated? Specifics in your answer please.
The fake flame war between Conservative and Syriusly has been reported, as was their similar posting styles.
This topic is really bothering the cult. They're going manic at this point...ANYTHING to shut the topic down..
Typical arrogant Liberal. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more about something.
Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.
Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.
Again, typical arrogant Liberal believing that what they think is the only way to think.
No- I just know more about this subject than you do. You are welcome to your opinion- whatever that is- apparently your opinion revolves around every judge who you disagree with must be following a specific agenda- but don't expect your opinion will go unchallenged.
You claim you know more. When you can prove it by something other than simply saying it, go ahead. Claims have to be supported and support doesn't come from a statement of saying you know more. Back it up son.
Apparently your opinion revolves around any judge agreeing with your opinion as not following an agenda.
Boy
I prove it with every post.
Oh just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean I know more about this issue than you.
Its because I actually know more about the issue than you do.
Again, typical arrogant Liberal believing that what they think is the only way to think.
No- I just know more about this subject than you do. You are welcome to your opinion- whatever that is- apparently your opinion revolves around every judge who you disagree with must be following a specific agenda- but don't expect your opinion will go unchallenged.
You claim you know more. When you can prove it by something other than simply saying it, go ahead. Claims have to be supported and support doesn't come from a statement of saying you know more. Back it up son.
Apparently your opinion revolves around any judge agreeing with your opinion as not following an agenda.
Boy
I prove it with every post.
All you prove is that you can make a claim without providing evidence to support it. All you've done is SAY you know more about it. Saying it and proving it aren't the same things. You really are yet another Liberal dumbass.
Again, typical arrogant Liberal believing that what they think is the only way to think.
No- I just know more about this subject than you do. You are welcome to your opinion- whatever that is- apparently your opinion revolves around every judge who you disagree with must be following a specific agenda- but don't expect your opinion will go unchallenged.
You claim you know more. When you can prove it by something other than simply saying it, go ahead. Claims have to be supported and support doesn't come from a statement of saying you know more. Back it up son.
Apparently your opinion revolves around any judge agreeing with your opinion as not following an agenda.
Boy
I prove it with every post.
All you prove is that you can make a claim without providing evidence to support it. All you've done is SAY you know more about it. Saying it and proving it aren't the same things. You really are yet another Liberal dumbass.
Do you have anything- anything at all to contribute to this thread?
I mean other than the stuff you pull out of your ass?
No- I just know more about this subject than you do. You are welcome to your opinion- whatever that is- apparently your opinion revolves around every judge who you disagree with must be following a specific agenda- but don't expect your opinion will go unchallenged.
You claim you know more. When you can prove it by something other than simply saying it, go ahead. Claims have to be supported and support doesn't come from a statement of saying you know more. Back it up son.
Apparently your opinion revolves around any judge agreeing with your opinion as not following an agenda.
Boy
I prove it with every post.
All you prove is that you can make a claim without providing evidence to support it. All you've done is SAY you know more about it. Saying it and proving it aren't the same things. You really are yet another Liberal dumbass.
Do you have anything- anything at all to contribute to this thread?
I mean other than the stuff you pull out of your ass?
Do you have anything to prove your claim that you know more about this than other people? Saying it isn't proof. Making unfounded claims isn't proof. Anything?
