Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[Silhouette]

1. Thank you for finally admitting that Prop 8 was denied based on standing, which - as noted by the SCOTUS in the decision - private voters don't have.

2. If you believe that is incorrect, I seem to remember you have said in the past you live in California, have you filed a suit in federal court to appeal the SCOTUS decision in Prop 8?



>>>>

1. That's not what I said at all and not what happened either. The APPEAL to correct the fascism of judge Walker was denied on STANDING, not on merit. There was ZERO constitutional finding on Prop 8 except via its twin-hearing Windsor. In Windsor, state's choice [under the question of legality of gay marriage] instead was Upheld as reflective of how "the Framer's of the Constitution intended". A choice means "yes" or "no". It does not mean "always yes".

Read it and weep pal. Prop 8 is law unless or until it is overturned by a new SCOTUS Finding.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Thank you for finally admitting that Prop 8 was denied based on standing, which - as noted by the SCOTUS in the decision - private voters don't have.

2. If you believe that is incorrect, I seem to remember you have said in the past you live in California, have you filed a suit in federal court to appeal the SCOTUS decision in Prop 8?



>>>>

1. That's not what I said at all and not what happened either. The APPEAL to correct the fascism of judge Walker was denied on STANDING, not on merit. There was ZERO constitutional finding on Prop 8 except via its twin-hearing Windsor. In Windsor, state's choice [under the question of legality of gay marriage] instead was Upheld as reflective of how "the Framer's of the Constitution intended". A choice means "yes" or "no". It does not mean "always yes".

Read it and weep pal. Prop 8 is law unless or until it is overturned by a new SCOTUS Finding.

I'm sorry, you must be the one weeping knowing that SSCM is legal in California but unable to accept it - so you put yourself in denial.


Do you live in California? If yes, have you filed in federal court to appeal the SCOTUS ruling?



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, Sil is in denial.

Nothing is going to change that, I think.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, Sil is in denial.

Nothing is going to change that, I think.

Nice spin. Will that be your amicus brief in face of the weight of state's choice in Windsor 2013?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, Sil is in denial.

Nothing is going to change that, I think.

Nice spin. Will that be your amicus brief in face of the weight of state's choice in Windsor 2013?

Speaking of briefs...


Do you live in California? If yes, have you filed in federal court to appeal the SCOTUS ruling?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, Sil is in denial.

Nothing is going to change that, I think.

Nice spin. Will that be your amicus brief in face of the weight of state's choice in Windsor 2013?

Windsor allows SCOTUS to protect citizens from the state's unconstitutional denial of civl rights and personal liberties per the 14th.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Their vote cannot legally be "thrown out" AmericanFirst

According to the Constitution, the lege is acting legitimately, and opposition such as yours is in fact rogue.

Wrong. Simply wrong.

The CA legislature according to Article II, Section 10 (c) may not alter or revoke an initiative without permission from the voters. Changing the exact wording in subservient law that reflects Prop 8's description of marriage is sedition.

Prop 8's intent, an initiative governing the description of marriage as a man and a woman, voted by the electors of that state's wide opinion of its discreet community was Upheld [Windsor 2013] as that state's electors' rights to do so. And while appeals are pending concerning state's continued rights to do so, all initiative laws reflecting Windsor's constitutional finding default to electors-rights to govern themselves with respect to gay marriage.

Voters in CA have standing to seek redress from the US Supreme Court to intervene and protect democracy.

Your opinion does not comport with the facts and the law.

SCOTUS says private citizens have no such standing, but you say they do.

In the matter of law, your opinion is immaterial, as you well know.

You are wrong, stop trying to look intelligent by stating lies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Their vote cannot legally be "thrown out" AmericanFirst



Wrong. Simply wrong.

The CA legislature according to Article II, Section 10 (c) may not alter or revoke an initiative without permission from the voters. Changing the exact wording in subservient law that reflects Prop 8's description of marriage is sedition.

Prop 8's intent, an initiative governing the description of marriage as a man and a woman, voted by the electors of that state's wide opinion of its discreet community was Upheld [Windsor 2013] as that state's electors' rights to do so. And while appeals are pending concerning state's continued rights to do so, all initiative laws reflecting Windsor's constitutional finding default to electors-rights to govern themselves with respect to gay marriage.

Voters in CA have standing to seek redress from the US Supreme Court to intervene and protect democracy.

Your opinion does not comport with the facts and the law.

SCOTUS says private citizens have no such standing, but you say they do.

In the matter of law, your opinion is immaterial, as you well know.

You are wrong, stop trying to look intelligent by stating lies.

Ummm - The SCOTUS did rule in Perry that private citizens don't have standing.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the
District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction
to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf



>>>>

 

[AmericanFirst]

What part of "Fuck your God" is really so difficult to understand?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution says, "Fuck your God." It doesn't get any more plain than that. Your stupid fucking fairy tale does not dictate our laws.

Fuck prop 8, fuck your church, fuck your god, and fuck you. Why are all of you such hate-filled cretins? Honestly? What happened in your lives to make each of you SO fucked-up that you want to write laws that keep other people from being happy? Because you don't like to think about what they do in their own homes? Fuck you, fuck your bible, fuck your church, fuck your god and fuck you again.

Go back to Germany. Move to Uganda if you hate homosexuals so much. Move to Saudi Arabia or some other mangled religious shithole. Get the fuck out of our United States.

Your religion is a danger to our First Amendment.

What is plain is you are a Satan born idiot. And you are wrong.

 

[dcraelin]

Your opinion does not comport with the facts and the law.
SCOTUS says private citizens have no such standing, but you say they do.
In the matter of law, your opinion is immaterial, as you well know.

You are wrong, stop trying to look intelligent by stating lies.

Ummm - The SCOTUS did rule in Perry that private citizens don't have standing.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.
Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the
District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction
to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
>>>>

the hypocrites on the SC were fine with a private individual challenging the constitution under the fraud induced ex parte young provision, but they say the above when "private" individuals challenged the challenge.

the so-called "private" individuals in the prop 8 case where authorized to defend the law by the Republic of California itself. They were acting as the/in the place of government officials who had shirked their duty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dcraelin and AmericanFirst think I am wrong.

Tough.

The law is what the interpretation of SCOTUS opines it to be.

End of story.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are wrong, stop trying to look intelligent by stating lies.

Ummm - The SCOTUS did rule in Perry that private citizens don't have standing.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.
Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the
District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction
to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
>>>>

the hypocrites on the SC were fine with a private individual challenging the constitution under the fraud induced ex parte young provision, but they say the above when "private" individuals challenged the challenge.

the so-called "private" individuals in the prop 8 case where authorized to defend the law by the Republic of California itself. They were acting as the/in the place of government officials who had shirked their duty.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Unsurprisingly.

The issue has nothing to do with 'challenging the Constitution,' which doesn't even make any sense.

The issue concerned private citizens seeking to defend a state law challenged by private citizens who were injured by that law. Only officers of the state may defend a state law from a legal challenge, not private citizens, and the Court reaffirmed that settled and accepted doctrine in Perry:

The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers. “Refusing to entertain generalized grievances ensures that . . . courts exercise power that is judicial in nature,” Lance, 549 U. S., at 441, and ensures that the Federal Judiciary respects “the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society,” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[dcraelin]

Ummm - The SCOTUS did rule in Perry that private citizens don't have standing.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.
Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the
District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction
to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
>>>>

the hypocrites on the SC were fine with a private individual challenging the constitution under the fraud induced ex parte young provision, but they say the above when "private" individuals challenged the challenge.

the so-called "private" individuals in the prop 8 case where authorized to defend the law by the Republic of California itself. They were acting as the/in the place of government officials who had shirked their duty.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Unsurprisingly.

The issue has nothing to do with 'challenging the Constitution,' which doesn't even make any sense.

The issue concerned private citizens seeking to defend a state law challenged by private citizens who were injured by that law. Only officers of the state may defend a state law from a legal challenge, not private citizens, and the Court reaffirmed that settled and accepted doctrine in Perry:

The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers. “Refusing to entertain generalized grievances ensures that . . . courts exercise power that is judicial in nature,” Lance, 549 U. S., at 441, and ensures that the Federal Judiciary respects “the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society,” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY | LII / Legal Information Institute

u must be a lawyer...you know damn well what i meant by challenging the constitution. tho it was poorly worded on my part. Challenging the law in a federal court.

The court,..and your, "reasoning" here is just bull shit. The state of California should have been notified of this idiotic idea from the federal government then when they (California) passed the law saying "private" parties could do this (defend the law) because it left the people of the whole state with the wrong impression. The ruling however violates the part of the constitution that guarantees to each state a Republican form of government. It hides behind some "we have never before"crap ......well maybe they should have before...they certainly should have upheld it here in this case.

they are also using logic meant to limit the courts power.....to expand the courts power. It is typical lawyers bullshit.......

The Supreme idiots say states cant "simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse."
While they did the same thing in ex parte young as a favor to railroad corporations. However who better than a whole state, representing a whole people to issue to a "private party" a ticket to a courthouse when their own officials have shirked their duty under their own state constitution? The "private party" was doing the duty of a state official.

THis was a very damaging ruling to the heart of the ideals of our Republican system. One that Scalia and the like are most likely gloating over. It was very short-sighted for the gay community to bring it to court...and to celebrate it now. And it is equally short-sighted to keep pushing this subject in the federal courts.

 

[Silhouette]

the hypocrites on the SC were fine with a private individual challenging the constitution under the fraud induced ex parte young provision, but they say the above when "private" individuals challenged the challenge.

the so-called "private" individuals in the prop 8 case where authorized to defend the law by the Republic of California itself. They were acting as the/in the place of government officials who had shirked their duty.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Unsurprisingly.

The issue has nothing to do with 'challenging the Constitution,' which doesn't even make any sense.

The issue concerned private citizens seeking to defend a state law challenged by private citizens who were injured by that law. Only officers of the state may defend a state law from a legal challenge, not private citizens, and the Court reaffirmed that settled and accepted doctrine in Perry:

The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers. “Refusing to entertain generalized grievances ensures that . . . courts exercise power that is judicial in nature,” Lance, 549 U. S., at 441, and ensures that the Federal Judiciary respects “the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society,” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY | LII / Legal Information Institute

u must be a lawyer...you know damn well what i meant by challenging the constitution. tho it was poorly worded on my part. Challenging the law in a federal court.

The court,..and your, "reasoning" here is just bull shit. The state of California should have been notified of this idiotic idea from the federal government then when they (California) passed the law saying "private" parties could do this (defend the law) because it left the people of the whole state with the wrong impression. The ruling however violates the part of the constitution that guarantees to each state a Republican form of government. It hides behind some "we have never before"crap ......well maybe they should have before...they certainly should have upheld it here in this case.

they are also using logic meant to limit the courts power.....to expand the courts power. It is typical lawyers bullshit.......

The Supreme idiots say states cant "simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse."
While they did the same thing in ex parte young as a favor to railroad corporations. However who better than a whole state, representing a whole people to issue to a "private party" a ticket to a courthouse when their own officials have shirked their duty under their own state constitution? The "private party" was doing the duty of a state official.

THis was a very damaging ruling to the heart of the ideals of our Republican system. One that Scalia and the like are most likely gloating over. It was very short-sighted for the gay community to bring it to court...and to celebrate it now. And it is equally short-sighted to keep pushing this subject in the federal courts.

Yes, and tell me how a voter in California, or 7 million of them for that matter, would find redress to preserve their Republican form of government when the very people the SCOTUS says are the only ones allowed to have standing, are the same ones removing the power of their vote via sedition?

I'd push it. I'd push this one if I was a California voter. All it would take is one. I would force the US Supreme Court to say publicly "sedition is allowed if done by people high enough in power in a given state: there is no redress. Voters are simply screwed. Democracy no longer exists.". I'd just like to see them grow a pair big enough to dare to say that to the Public.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dcraelin and Sil have no legal ground as private citizens to challenge the California ruling and obstructed the legislature.

Tis what it is.

 

[Silhouette]

dcraelin and Sil have no legal ground as private citizens to challenge the California ruling and obstructed the legislature.

Tis what it is.

That sounds like you're afraid that a registered CA voter does have grounds....

There can be no legal situation where it is allowed for a person's consitutional right to have their vote counted, actively suppressed or revoked without that citizen having redress at the Supreme Court level.

Tis what it is... You would lose this bet friend. The thing is you're a lawyer and you know you are lying. You know there is beef for a very effective lawsuit on this matter of revoking a person's weight of vote in California. You're hoping to smack talk anyone reading this into giving up before starting.

I say the case would make national news. And for good reason...

 

[hazlnut]

The ballot initiative system in CA has been broken and misused for years.


Prop. 8 proved that.



WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC - NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

Get that straight people.


The "will" of the people is expressed through checks and balances over time. Not a one time knee jerk vote.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Blacks and Hispanics don't like Gays or Gay Marriage.

It's just a fact.

So sorry to challenge your 'fact', but all "blacks" don't think alike, and, all "Hispanics" don't think alike.

Only conservative members of the echo chamber seem to think alike. Seem, because they believe and parrot the same thing without a bit of thought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dcraelin and Sil have no legal ground as private citizens to challenge the California ruling and obstructed the legislature.

Tis what it is.

That sounds like you're afraid that a registered CA voter does have grounds....

There can be no legal situation where it is allowed for a person's consitutional right to have their vote counted, actively suppressed or revoked without that citizen having redress at the Supreme Court level.

Tis what it is... You would lose this bet friend. The thing is you're a lawyer and you know you are lying. You know there is beef for a very effective lawsuit on this matter of revoking a person's weight of vote in California. You're hoping to smack talk anyone reading this into giving up before starting.

I say the case would make national news. And for good reason...

You sound like a fool, like an Orly Taitz.

SCOTUS has spoken.

 

[dcraelin]

The ballot initiative system in CA has been broken and misused for years.
Prop. 8 proved that.
WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC - NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
Get that straight people.
The "will" of the people is expressed through checks and balances over time. Not a one time knee jerk vote.

who are you to say it was a "knee jerk vote"?....maybe the courts reaction was knee jerk?......

http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...cture-is-him-at-constitutional-convention.jpg