Judge Timothy S. Black engages in judicial tyranny in “same sex” marriage case!

[johnwk]

SEE: Clermont lawmaker: Impeach judge for recognizing gay marriage


“I am writing you today to express my concerns about the federal government’s ever growing propensity to violate state sovereignty,” Becker said. “Although this has been a trend since the early 19th century, it has accelerated exponentially in recent decades.”

Federal judges are appointed for life. The only way to remove a federal judge is for the House of Representatives to impeach them or the Senate to vote to remove them from office."


JWK

Good luck with that impeachment thing.

Notice the part he left off which was Representative Wenstrup (R)?

"In response, Wenstrup said: “While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court. I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.”​

Basically a tactful way of saying "Ahhhhh - no thanks."



>>>>>

I see you have ignored the part of the thread pointing out the judge is attempting to make the 14th Amendment mean whatever he wishes it to mean in spite of its clear and limited legislative intent.

Additionally, your adolescent obsession with Republican vs Democrat thing exhibits your disingenuous response.

JWK




If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[Seawytch]

Good luck with that impeachment thing.

Notice the part he left off which was Representative Wenstrup (R)?

"In response, Wenstrup said: “While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court. I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.”​

Basically a tactful way of saying "Ahhhhh - no thanks."



>>>>>

I see you have ignored the part of the thread pointing out the judge is attempting to make the 14th Amendment mean whatever he wishes it to mean in spite of its clear and limited legislative intent.

So when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia, they were exceeding the limited legislative intent of the 14th Amendment?

 

[johnwk]

Notice the part he left off which was Representative Wenstrup (R)?

"In response, Wenstrup said: “While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court. I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.”​

Basically a tactful way of saying "Ahhhhh - no thanks."



>>>>>

I see you have ignored the part of the thread pointing out the judge is attempting to make the 14th Amendment mean whatever he wishes it to mean in spite of its clear and limited legislative intent.

So when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia, they were exceeding the limited legislative intent of the 14th Amendment?

Now why would you ask such an absurd question? I suggest you go to the first post in the thread and study it very carefully.


JWK

 

[deltex1]

Is it same sex marriage or gay marriage?? Do you have to be gay or just the same sex?

I didn't know that was such a tough question.