Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Yurt]

i once didn't reply to a post by jake for 40 minutes and he claimed i ran away

well we are over 40 minutes

jake....have you run away, according to the rules set by you?

 

[dcraelin]

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

Why bring up Palin and Bachmann? They aren't federal judges, supposed experts on the Constitution. They arent using it to nullify the will of the people.

your post quoting the Constitution did not address the mis-info provided by Jones that said judicial review was used in Colonial America.

Incorrect.

The doctrine of judicial review was in fact practiced by Colonial courts.

The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review

so your comparing judicial review to the king's stooges overturning laws by colonial legislatures. The same king and courts we overthrew in the revolutionary war. If you want to continue to push that comparison your welcome to.

It is perhaps because of that process tho that judicial review was prohibited in the early state governments and constitutions, according to "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" by Mark R. Levin

 

[JakeStarkey]

Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin

(1) Yurt got caught crying again so he is filiblabbling

(2) dcraelin got it wrong so he is crying

Yurt believes, I think, that Dunn was right to shoot the youth. I am right, Yurt?

 

[dcraelin]

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

Why bring up Palin and Bachmann? They aren't federal judges, supposed experts on the Constitution. They arent using it to nullify the will of the people.

your post quoting the Constitution did not address the mis-info provided by Jones that said judicial review was used in Colonial America.

Don't be silly. You mentioned the inadequacy of a federal judge in a political context, which makes the far right's idiots fair game as well.

Your comment reveals your ignorance on the subject, though. Consult The Aristocracy of the Long Robe: The Origins of Judicial Review in America (Contributions in Legal Studies)
so that you are able to talk about sides of the coin.

On the basis of a survey of English practice and American Colonial case law and legal controversies, the author engages in a sometimes heated complaint against the emergence of a Transcendently Omnipotent' Court' in opposition to the historical evidence that no precedent for such a Court can be found in English or Colonial American practice. Paradoxically, his review of Colonial controversies goes a considerable distance toward establishing that judicial review was an early topic of controversy and thus not without precedent in American constitutional development.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Aristocracy-Long-Robe-Contributions/dp/0313267332]The Aristocracy of the Long Robe: The Origins of Judicial Review in America (Contributions in Legal Studies): J. M. Sosin: 9780313267338: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Don't be silly. I mentioned the inadequacy of a federal judge in a legal context.

Aristocracy of the Long Robe is the book you cite,... somehow I think it might be against judicial review,... as the later paragraph acknowledges. What the English practiced WAS an abuse and wasn't really based on a Constitution sense the British didn't have a Constitution.

 

[Yurt]

Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin

(1) Yurt got caught crying again so he is filiblabbling

(2) dcraelin got it wrong so he is crying

Yurt believes, I think, that Dunn was right to shoot the youth. I am right, Yurt?

so when i didn't reply within 40 minutes....why did you claim i ran away?

i got caught crying? about what?

your last statement is so far from the truth i am amazed and appalled that anyone on this board believes you. you have fooled many people jake, but you can't fool them all.

you have now run away again from you claim that states cannot violate civil rights....you have again run away from the fact that scotus has not rule that states cannot ban gay marriage.

you're just flailing and making troll posts that have NOTHING to do with the topic. i put the topic squarely within your sites. i even numbered them and yet you continue to troll and run like the coward you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been given competent rebuttal.

Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.

Tuff, but there it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin

(1) Yurt got caught crying again so he is filiblabbling

(2) dcraelin got it wrong so he is crying

Yurt believes, I think, that Dunn was right to shoot the youth. I am right, Yurt?

so when i didn't reply within 40 minutes....why did you claim i ran away?

i got caught crying? about what?

your last statement is so far from the truth i am amazed and appalled that anyone on this board believes you. you have fooled many people jake, but you can't fool them all.

you have now run away again from you claim that states cannot violate civil rights....you have again run away from the fact that scotus has not rule that states cannot ban gay marriage.

you're just flailing and making troll posts that have NOTHING to do with the topic. i put the topic squarely within your sites. i even numbered them and yet you continue to troll and run like the coward you are.

I was clear in what I said, and you have been lying ever since.

You are the ultimate troll, Yurt, but you fail, so you are the poorest ultimate troll.

Now prove what you said, or you will continue to lie.

The far right position crumbles any and every time that Yurt posts about anything.

 

[Yurt]

Been following the Dunn verdict stuff, but to loserville with Yurt and dcraelin

(1) Yurt got caught crying again so he is filiblabbling

(2) dcraelin got it wrong so he is crying

Yurt believes, I think, that Dunn was right to shoot the youth. I am right, Yurt?

so when i didn't reply within 40 minutes....why did you claim i ran away?

i got caught crying? about what?

your last statement is so far from the truth i am amazed and appalled that anyone on this board believes you. you have fooled many people jake, but you can't fool them all.

you have now run away again from you claim that states cannot violate civil rights....you have again run away from the fact that scotus has not rule that states cannot ban gay marriage.

you're just flailing and making troll posts that have NOTHING to do with the topic. i put the topic squarely within your sites. i even numbered them and yet you continue to troll and run like the coward you are.

I was clear in what I said, and you have been lying ever since.

You are the ultimate troll, Yurt, but you fail, so you are the poorest ultimate troll.

Now prove what you said, or you will continue to lie.

The far right position crumbles any and every time that Yurt posts about anything.

????

1. you didn't answer my question about me not answering for 40 minutes and you claimed i ran away.

2. what are you clear about in what you said? be specific. because i quoted your exact words and even quoted the FULL post and you still can't admit you're wrong about states violating civil rights. what is wrong with you?

3. how am i the ultimate troll? how have i trolled this thread? i have tried to keep you on topic and all you do is pout and CRY: yurt is a liar and troll. you do not answer anything of substance. i cannot believe anyone on this board takes you seriously. i'm not kidding.

4. what do you want me to prove jake? what did i say that you want me to prove?

5. why bring up the far right with me jake? is it because i support gay marriage? or is it you're just a fucking dumbass troll that only knows certain words and must repeat them ad nauseum?

 

[dcraelin]

You have been given competent rebuttal.
Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.
Tuff, but there it is.

judicial overreach is certainly part of American legal history....something we tried to reject with the revolutionary war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so when i didn't reply within 40 minutes....why did you claim i ran away?

i got caught crying? about what?

your last statement is so far from the truth i am amazed and appalled that anyone on this board believes you. you have fooled many people jake, but you can't fool them all.

you have now run away again from you claim that states cannot violate civil rights....you have again run away from the fact that scotus has not rule that states cannot ban gay marriage.

you're just flailing and making troll posts that have NOTHING to do with the topic. i put the topic squarely within your sites. i even numbered them and yet you continue to troll and run like the coward you are.

I was clear in what I said, and you have been lying ever since.

You are the ultimate troll, Yurt, but you fail, so you are the poorest ultimate troll.

Now prove what you said, or you will continue to lie.

The far right position crumbles any and every time that Yurt posts about anything.

????

1. you didn't answer my question about me not answering for 40 minutes and you claimed i ran away.

2. what are you clear about in what you said? be specific. because i quoted your exact words and even quoted the FULL post and you still can't admit you're wrong about states violating civil rights. what is wrong with you?

3. how am i the ultimate troll? how have i trolled this thread? i have tried to keep you on topic and all you do is pout and CRY: yurt is a liar and troll. you do not answer anything of substance. i cannot believe anyone on this board takes you seriously. i'm not kidding.

4. what do you want me to prove jake? what did i say that you want me to prove?

5. why bring up the far right with me jake? is it because i support gay marriage? or is it you're just a fucking dumbass troll that only knows certain words and must repeat them ad nauseum?

Your filibabble only reveals your trollishness, buddy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been given competent rebuttal.
Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.
Tuff, but there it is.

judicial overreach is certainly part of American legal history....something we tried to reject with the revolutionary war.

That was removing trials to GB, buddy, not judicial review.

 

[Silhouette]

You have been given competent rebuttal.

Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.

Tuff, but there it is.

And the final stop in judicial review is the US Supreme Court.

I repeat:

If you look at Windsor, that was just Written mere months ago, the Justices are not going to do an about face on their firm stance that states get to define marriage.

Like I said, they brought up Loving v Virginia, which is the same as bringing up the 14th, and they found that in spite of that same sex marriage is only legal in "some states". They made a comparison as well of same sex marriage as to blood relatives marrying [incest] and 13 year olds marrying in Vermont. Will there be a sudden sweep, a mandate of 13 year olds being able to marry across all 50 states? Probably not.

The simple fact that the avid followers of LGBT here are trying desperately to avoid talking about is that the US Supreme Court is not famous for reversing its key stance [they declared the issue of state's rights was pivotal in Windsor] on a given issue in less than a year's time.

Harvey Milk vs Utah will be heard this year. So, just prepare mentally that SCOTUS isn't likely to reverse it's key stance that states have the unquestioned and constitutionally supported right to a broad-swath consensus [goodbye judicial activism or even legislature activism] retroactive to the founding of the country. For this is exactly how they worded and intended Windsor to mean. They brought up the 14th and found that gay marraige did not apply across 50 states. As Larry the Cable Guy would say....."there's your sign..."

 

[beagle9]

FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do.

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ? Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ? Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, yes, SCOTUS is where final judicial review ends.

Your finding that The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – must be completed with in accordance with the 14th Amendment's guarantees.

 

[Yurt]

I was clear in what I said, and you have been lying ever since.

You are the ultimate troll, Yurt, but you fail, so you are the poorest ultimate troll.

Now prove what you said, or you will continue to lie.

The far right position crumbles any and every time that Yurt posts about anything.

????

1. you didn't answer my question about me not answering for 40 minutes and you claimed i ran away.

2. what are you clear about in what you said? be specific. because i quoted your exact words and even quoted the FULL post and you still can't admit you're wrong about states violating civil rights. what is wrong with you?

3. how am i the ultimate troll? how have i trolled this thread? i have tried to keep you on topic and all you do is pout and CRY: yurt is a liar and troll. you do not answer anything of substance. i cannot believe anyone on this board takes you seriously. i'm not kidding.

4. what do you want me to prove jake? what did i say that you want me to prove?

5. why bring up the far right with me jake? is it because i support gay marriage? or is it you're just a fucking dumbass troll that only knows certain words and must repeat them ad nauseum?

Your filibabble only reveals your trollishness, buddy.

i don't speak for the rest of the board as you claim to do....but you didn't address a single point. you're not debating anything, you're trolling.

this happens every single time you and i disagree. you're a pussy jake. i post facts and truths and you ad hom.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Yurt]

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

jake is a special kind of retard

 

[beagle9]

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

jake is a special kind of retard

I don't know, I mean a retard is excusable, so Jake is something else altogether. You should have been here when Sil was whipping him good, because then he tried this tactic of " I'm telling on you to the mod", even though he didn't know what he was going to tell about or if it was even worth telling about, but it was his last ditch effort against her when he and some others were down on the floor for the count a time or two...LOL

 

[Yurt]

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

jake is a special kind of retard

I don't know, I mean a retard is excusable, so Jake is something else altogether. You should have been here when Sil was whipping him good, because then he tried this tactic of " I'm telling on you to the mod", even though he didn't know what he was going to tell about or if it was even worth telling about, but it was his last ditch effort against her when he and some others were down on the floor for the count here and there or for a time or two...LOL

jakey is the board's biggest tattle tale and the most whiny wannabe mod. thank goodness the owner of this site realizes jake is not fit to be a mod.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his buttgroove yet again.

The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt.

To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, is in a something-some with Sil and beagle9.

 

[Silhouette]

Yurt is letting the hurt flow through his buttgroove yet again.

The only reason that beagle9 looks sentient is that he is standing next to Yurt.

To prove the point is that Yurt, who says is for marriage equality, is in a something-some with Sil and beagle9.

Is that an argument you would use in court or just ad hominem to detract from the fact that in this thread "court" you are losing your argument on the merits?

You've read DOMA I'm assuming. You realize they visited the 14th by bringing up Loving v Virginia and decided anyway that gay marriage wasn't allowed in all 50 states, right? You've read how the hub of Windsor/DOMA was a state's right to determine marriage under the context of the question of legality of gay marriage, right?

Of course you have..

...back to your ad hominems now counsellor...