Issues / Matters Pending before the SCOTUS

[Wry Catcher]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

"The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit"? A statement sans facts.

Judges and justices are rarely apolitical, thus impartiality is but a dream. The best we can hope for is a majority which actually puts our citizens first, individually and collectively; for the one indisputable take away from COTUS is, it was conceived and dedicated to We The People.

The People and their elected representatives will chart the course, not nine individuals uncountable to The People and serving for life.

 

[Disir]

Yes---because we have a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and making this the centerpiece will do nothing more than offer another distraction.

That said, this allows the Democrats to show that it is one more thing that the Republicans cannot get done-especially if they continue to have budget issues. They will exploit the hell out of that. They don't really NEED to put forth any more effort at that point.

Although-it would allow the Chamber of Commerce to get rid of all of the Tea Party folk while using them to delay for a long term goal. On the other hand it's not just a huge gamble with some futuristic retirements but there are those pending cases.

I suspect there will be a 2-3 week media campaign driven by the right that will end the shenanigans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A state can't enforce legislation that is found to be counter to the federal constitution. That's nothing new.

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

Today the justices on the Supreme Court rule by ideology, let's not pretend these are apolitical drones who 'compute' an issue within the code supplied (COTUS)

 

[martybegan]

There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to a gay marriage in contrivance of state law.

Yet there is specific words against infringing on my RKBA, and your side LOVES to ignore those words.

You make up crap to support what you want, and ignore words when they don't suit you. Its legal anarchy, nothing more or less.

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

Today the justices on the Supreme Court rule by ideology, let's not pretend these are apolitical drones who 'compute' an issue within the code supplied (COTUS)

You didn't answer the question.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If what you are saying was true then the Supreme Court would have ruled differently. Maybe you should read the ruling, or work to have the constitution changed so it is more to your liking. Or start your own lawsuit. The SC has overruled itself before.

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

Today the justices on the Supreme Court rule by ideology, let's not pretend these are apolitical drones who 'compute' an issue within the code supplied (COTUS)

You didn't answer the question.

I did. You're reading the wrong reply. Unless you wanted to hear Wry's answer in which case

 

[martybegan]

The SC rules wrongly on may issues, but again your partisan blinders lets you ignore the procedure issues when the result you get is something you agree with.

The majority opinion in Obergfell is a mish mash of wishes, hopes and ignorance.

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

Today the justices on the Supreme Court rule by ideology, let's not pretend these are apolitical drones who 'compute' an issue within the code supplied (COTUS)

You didn't answer the question.

I did. You're reading the wrong reply. Unless you wanted to hear Wry's answer in which case

This was in response to Wry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

Do you support the rights of states to discriminate against both their own citizens as well as a citizen of another state who might enter their state?

 

[martybegan]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

Do you support the rights of states to discriminate against both their own citizens as well as a citizen of another state who might enter their state?

A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples. However under full faith and credit it would have to recognize a valid marriage certificate from another State.

It's not discrimination, it's defining a contract and 1) who it gets issued to and 2)what has to be recognized by other States.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The supreme court does not rule "wrongly" or "rightly." It rules whether something violates or doesn't violate the constitution. If you disagree I already gave you your options.

So Dred Scott wasn't "wrong"? Plessey V Fergeuson wasn't "wrong". To you, Citizen United wasn't "wrong"?

Today the justices on the Supreme Court rule by ideology, let's not pretend these are apolitical drones who 'compute' an issue within the code supplied (COTUS)

You didn't answer the question.

I did. You're reading the wrong reply. Unless you wanted to hear Wry's answer in which case

This was in response to Wry.

The question was not one directed to me. If you want an answer both Scott and Plessey were wrong as is CU v. FEC and McCutheon.

Why, because they ignored the rights of individuals in the former two, and made a mockery of our democratic elections in the latter two.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have a hard time believing so many decisions are 5/4 anyway. That's proof ideology trumps critical analysis. No way can 9 smart people come to different conclusions with so few words to go on. The left is misusing the court and abusing the citizens with their bullshit. We need to revamp the court and turn it into an impartial objective arm of the government.

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

Do you support the rights of states to discriminate against both their own citizens as well as a citizen of another state who might enter their state?

A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples. However under full faith and credit it would have to recognize a valid marriage certificate from another State.

It's not discrimination, it's defining a contract and 1) who it gets issued to and 2)what has to be recognized by other States.

LOL.

 

[martybegan]

Its the crux of the whole "legislating from the bench" complaint that strict constructionists have been espousing for decades now.

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

Do you support the rights of states to discriminate against both their own citizens as well as a citizen of another state who might enter their state?

A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples. However under full faith and credit it would have to recognize a valid marriage certificate from another State.

It's not discrimination, it's defining a contract and 1) who it gets issued to and 2)what has to be recognized by other States.

LOL.

No response? Figures.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They are not legislating from the bench. You just hate teh gheys and Obamacare. The legislative branch could get rid of both in ways the supreme court would have no say, and would then be required to enforce through interpretation.

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

Do you support the rights of states to discriminate against both their own citizens as well as a citizen of another state who might enter their state?

A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples. However under full faith and credit it would have to recognize a valid marriage certificate from another State.

It's not discrimination, it's defining a contract and 1) who it gets issued to and 2)what has to be recognized by other States.

LOL.

No response? Figures.

"No response"? Well, it was an obvious one to this:

"A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples...it is not discrimination"

 

[rightwinger]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

Obama WILL put a name on the table and remind the public every time there is a 4-4 vote

 

[martybegan]

No, I don't "hate teh gays", I hate when judges think they can create rights out of thin air. Your standard response against those who didn't like Obergfell doesn't work because I support gay marriage when States change their marriage law legislatively.

Do you support the rights of states to discriminate against both their own citizens as well as a citizen of another state who might enter their state?

A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples. However under full faith and credit it would have to recognize a valid marriage certificate from another State.

It's not discrimination, it's defining a contract and 1) who it gets issued to and 2)what has to be recognized by other States.

LOL.

No response? Figures.

"No response"? Well, it was an obvious one to this:

"A State can decide itself if it wants to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples...it is not discrimination"

Care to elaborate?

 

[Wry Catcher]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

Obama WILL put a name on the table and remind the public every time there is a 4-4 vote

As he should. We have a Congress whose disapproval rating is over 75% by not voting up or down on his nominess they will prove to be the least effective and most highly partisan Congress in our nations history.

But who on the Right cares, Party first is their number one priority with the I've got mine fuck the rest of you set.

 

[martybegan]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

Obama WILL put a name on the table and remind the public every time there is a 4-4 vote

As he should. We have a Congress whose disapproval rating is over 75% by not voting up or down on his nominess they will prove to be the least effective and most highly partisan Congress in our nations history.

But who on the Right cares, Party first is their number one priority with the I've got mine fuck the rest of you set.

When was the last time Congress had a positive approval rating?

But who on the left cares? Party first is their number one priority with the "We have ways of making you think and act like us" set.

 

[Iceweasel]

True Iceweasel. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous as well. As is this poll. Obama WILL nominate someone & the Senate WILL block it.

Obama WILL put a name on the table and remind the public every time there is a 4-4 vote

As he should. We have a Congress whose disapproval rating is over 75% by not voting up or down on his nominess they will prove to be the least effective and most highly partisan Congress in our nations history.

But who on the Right cares, Party first is their number one priority with the I've got mine fuck the rest of you set.

Puking up your hate filled bile over and over doesn't make it true. They want to save the country, it isn't about the party. When libs are in control they don't compromise on shit, you are fooling no one.

 

[saveliberty]

Have had some time to think about this. Of course if a Republican wins in the Fall, a conservative should be picked, but Trump is a wild card on that, so maybe consider a Hillary win? What does that mean?

So Obama realizes the best strategy is to pick a moderate with slight liberal bias. The Senate realizes future options may be more scary. Obama gets the legacy of another Justice selection. Perfect ? No, is it going to be?

 

[Hossfly]

No, because Obama and everybody else knows it's a waste of time until after the election. The senate will reject any nominations Obama makes. Sorry but that's politics.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes!

I hope a case comes up this year to add all LGBT to the civil rights act and laws to protect all these good people from the bigots on the right nationwide.