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.
In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
.
Except perhaps in cases where there is an internal conflict of law; as is the case with Obergefell should the Court try to deny other sexual-orienatations the "right" to marry...guaranteed nowhere in the US Constitution to anyone except the states as authority and final say. One gets federal protection, they all do. That's how the 14th works. Unless the Court is now the the overseer of "exceptions to majority rule on all things sexual orientation"..
In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
.
Except perhaps in cases where there is an internal conflict of law; as is the case with Obergefell should the Court try to deny other sexual-orienatations the "right" to marry...guaranteed nowhere in the US Constitution to anyone except the states as authority and final say. One gets federal protection, they all do. That's how the 14th works. Unless the Court is now the the overseer of "exceptions to majority rule on all things sexual orientation"..
Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and the Browns' are not basing their claims of their case as such. Why don't you support the religious freedoms of these people? You can't pick and choose which pet religious freedom you support. If you support one, you have to support them all. lol
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
The dictionary doesn't define polygamy as a sexual orientation:
Definition of POLYGAMY
In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
.
Except perhaps in cases where there is an internal conflict of law; as is the case with Obergefell should the Court try to deny other sexual-orienatations the "right" to marry...guaranteed nowhere in the US Constitution to anyone except the states as authority and final say. One gets federal protection, they all do. That's how the 14th works. Unless the Court is now the the overseer of "exceptions to majority rule on all things sexual orientation"..
Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and the Browns' are not basing their claims of their case as such. Why don't you support the religious freedoms of these people? You can't pick and choose which pet religious freedom you support. If you support one, you have to support them all. lol
And what are the odds that Sil will once again ignore the argument the Browns are *actually* making in favor of whatever pseudo-legal gibberish our resident horsebreeder has made up today.
It seems you are suggesting that abortion or same sex marriage is a constitunal right. They are not.
And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?
Just as drinking alcohol is not a defined right. There are plenty of areas that are dry or alcohol free. Do you suspect that the Supreme Court would deny the right of a smaller jurisdiction to declare that jurisdiction dry? There is no restrictions of constitutionally defined rights in this case, and I contend the Supreme Court should refuse the case.
And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.
See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.
Its just you.
And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.
Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992
Antonin Scalia on Abortion
And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.
And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?
So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?
The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.
In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.
A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.
The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.
Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.
Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.
And what, pray tell, defines what is a constitutional right and what isn't?
And you're obviously wrong. As the judiciary has not only the authority but the duty to place the constitution above acts of legislation that violate it.
See Federalist 78. Or I'll happily quote the relevant portions to you. Its not the entire legal system going back to the founders that don't understand the judiciary's role under the constitution.
Its just you.
And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.
Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992
Antonin Scalia on Abortion
And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.
And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?
So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?
The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.
In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.
Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.
A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.
The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.
Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.
Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.
So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).
With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.
So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism). With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. It made no distinction of sexual orientation, because to do so would have been discriminatory. A man can marry a woman regardless of eithers sexual orientation. So now a man can marry a man, or a woman a woman regardless of sexual orientation. They just changed the definition of marriage.
So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism). With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. It made no distinction of sexual orientation, because to do so would have been discriminatory. A man can marry a woman regardless of eithers sexual orientation. So now a man can marry a man, or a woman a woman regardless of sexual orientation. They just changed the definition of marriage.
They did more than that. Obergefell made it illegal to deny parties a marriage license based on sexual orientation. Polyamory is a sexual orientation.
They did more than that. Obergefell made it illegal to deny parties a marriage license based on sexual orientation. Polyamory is a sexual orientation. Citing the 14th means they cannot arbitrarily deny other sexual orientations than their pet favorite: homosexual.
They did more than that. Obergefell made it illegal to deny parties a marriage license based on sexual orientation. Polyamory is a sexual orientation. Citing the 14th means they cannot arbitrarily deny other sexual orientations than their pet favorite: homosexual.
Polygamy is not a sexual orientation despite all your whinings to the contrary.
Consult your dictionary if your further confused:
Definition of POLYGAMY
lol
And they routinely exploit women and force underaged girls into marriage.If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
So we couldn't find examples then of men who are powerfully sexually attracted to more than one woman? OK. Gotcha. Got any more rubbish you'll try to sell the public?
We also have laws for old one has to be in order to marry.
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
So we couldn't find examples then of men who are powerfully sexually attracted to more than one woman? OK. Gotcha. Got any more rubbish you'll try to sell the public?
We also have laws for old one has to be in order to marry.
Yes, the states decide that individually. You're getting good at this! STATES DECIDE. And if the states cannot decide on sexual orientation different from one man/one woman, then all orientations may marry. If the fed protects one, they protect them all. If man/woman isn't sacred, neither is "two".
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
So we couldn't find examples then of men who are powerfully sexually attracted to more than one woman? OK. Gotcha. Got any more rubbish you'll try to sell the public?
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
So we couldn't find examples then of men who are powerfully sexually attracted to more than one woman? OK. Gotcha. Got any more rubbish you'll try to sell the public?
You tell people to consult the dictionary and when the definition doesn't fit your narrative you ignore it. Too funny.
The Browns' are not citing polygamy as a sexual orientation, but they are citing privacy and religious freedom to make their case. I'll ask again, do you support the Browns' religious freedoms?
^^ well, if polyamory isn't a sexual orientation, then neither is homosexuality. I believe both are documented in literature as sexual drives/orientation. Consult your dictionary if your further confused.
So we couldn't find examples then of men who are powerfully sexually attracted to more than one woman? OK. Gotcha. Got any more rubbish you'll try to sell the public?
Laughing.....you've got jack shit to back up your pseudo-legal gibberish that polygamy is a sexual orientation.
Why would Turley ever include such incoherent gibberish in his legal arguments before the supreme court....when even you, the inventor of such meaningless gibberjabber, can't possibly back it up?
Explain it to us.
According to Sil: "Obergefell was hinged on the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending to sexual orientation under the word "sex" in the wording of its body."
Who cares that the word sex never once appears in the 14th Amendment?! All that matters is that Sil believes it is there.
