Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[Skylar]

I wasn't aware that lifestyles that affect the base definition of marriage to the detriment of children and states' rights to self-govern in order to protect children (the most important people in marriage) had already been determined? Can you point me to case law?

Quite a few assumptions you have there. Can you point me to the case law that shows that gay marriage is to the detriment of children?

Or are you just wiping your ass with your own standards yet again? If even you are going to ignore your own claims and standards, surely you'll understand why we don't take them seriously either.

 

[Syriusly]

Still waiting for you to EVER explain how children will be harmed by 'gay marriage'.

You mean the topic of the other thread? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Still waiting for you to EVER explain how children will be harmed by 'gay marriage'.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you two forgetting I've been addressing those questions over and over and over and over at this thread, you know, where that is the topic: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The topic of THIS thread is how the US Supreme Court is pre-loading the dice and eroding state laws in favor of gay marriage before the merits are even heard.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you two forgetting I've been addressing those questions over and over and over and over at this thread, you know, where that is the topic: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The topic of THIS thread is how the US Supreme Court is pre-loading the dice and eroding state laws in favor of gay marriage before the merits are even heard.

There are no merits, and the writing is on the wall for all to see, except you that is. It's over, move on.

 

[Silhouette]

There are no merits, and the writing is on the wall for all to see, except you that is. It's over, move on.

What you just said sums up my arguments. Are you even self aware enough or did they hire you just to play the role of "it's all over, nothing to see here, go home"?

You really are a one trick pony. So much so that your one trick is actually accentuating my points and you aren't even aware of it. If the US Supreme Court has announced (and it has) that it is taking up the case, you'd better believe there are merits to both sides. And if there aren't and they are engaging in a kangaroo court, they and you had better be aware of who controls Congress right now..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There are no merits, and the writing is on the wall for all to see, except you that is. It's over, move on.

What you just said sums up my arguments. Are you even self aware enough or did they hire you just to play the role of "it's all over, nothing to see here, go home"?

You really are a one trick pony. So much so that your one trick is actually accentuating my points and you aren't even aware of it. If the US Supreme Court has announced (and it has) that it is taking up the case, you'd better believe there are merits to both sides. And if there aren't and they are engaging in a kangaroo court, they and you had better be aware of who controls Congress right now..

They are taking the case only because a lower court ruled gay marriage bans are valid, and they are about to reverse that decision. They wouldn't even have bothered had the decision gone the other. There's no debate left, their minds were made up long ago. They just haven't written the decision because until recently they didn't need to, the lower were doing the job for them. All they were doing was waiting it out.

In June the gay marriage debate will be over. If you can read between the lines it already is.

 

[dcraelin]

There are no merits, and the writing is on the wall for all to see, except you that is. It's over, move on.

What you just said sums up my arguments. Are you even self aware enough or did they hire you just to play the role of "it's all over, nothing to see here, go home"?

You really are a one trick pony. So much so that your one trick is actually accentuating my points and you aren't even aware of it. If the US Supreme Court has announced (and it has) that it is taking up the case, you'd better believe there are merits to both sides. And if there aren't and they are engaging in a kangaroo court, they and you had better be aware of who controls Congress right now..

They are taking the case only because a lower court ruled gay marriage bans are valid, and they are about to reverse that decision. They wouldn't even have bothered had the decision gone the other. There's no debate left, their minds were made up long ago. They just haven't written the decision because until recently they didn't need to, the lower were doing the job for them. All they were doing was waiting it out.

In June the gay marriage debate will be over. If you can read between the lines it already is.

exactly....and that is the point....instead of doing their grossly overpaid jobs. They have already made up their minds before they've had the case before them.

 

[dcraelin]

I wasn't aware that lifestyles that affect the base definition of marriage to the detriment of children and states' rights to self-govern in order to protect children (the most important people in marriage) had already been determined? Can you point me to case law?

Quite a few assumptions you have there. Can you point me to the case law that shows that gay marriage is to the detriment of children?

Or are you just wiping your ass with your own standards yet again? If even you are going to ignore your own claims and standards, surely you'll understand why we don't take them seriously either.

you keep yapping away about "case law"...and" findings"...as if the justices have really put any effort into this and "found" something other than their emotional reaction......no they havent..They, like you are just spouting sophistry to justify the position they've already come to ....They get a warm and fuzzy feeling thinking they are morally superior by pushing these rulings.

as cold as it may be to say this, any "humiliation" felt by the kids in gay unions....is due to the fact their parents are gay in a society that is largely not. That may be wrong...but no damn court case will change that. That is why that particular line in the Windsor case is so moronic.

 

[Syriusly]

The topic of THIS thread is how the US Supreme Court is pre-loading the dice and eroding state laws in favor of gay marriage before the merits are even heard.

Oh the answer to that is no.

 

[Syriusly]

There are no merits, and the writing is on the wall for all to see, except you that is. It's over, move on.

You really are a one trick pony.

How ironic coming from "Gay is bad Silhouette"

 

[Silhouette]

They are taking the case only because a lower court ruled gay marriage bans are valid, and they are about to reverse that decision. They wouldn't even have bothered had the decision gone the other. There's no debate left, their minds were made up long ago. They just haven't written the decision because until recently they didn't need to, the lower were doing the job for them. All they were doing was waiting it out.
In June the gay marriage debate will be over. If you can read between the lines it already is.

exactly....and that is the point....instead of doing their grossly overpaid jobs. They have already made up their minds before they've had the case before them.

I wouldn't mind paying a decent unbiased, wise and seasoned SCOTUS Justice if they were worth their salt. But ACTIVELY eroding state laws without explanation or a hearing; when the topic of bestowing what essentially is a deviant-sex cult "special rights" before a Hearing is well, treason. I'll just call it what it actually is. Rock bottom this loading of the dice to pack tons more "legitimate" gay marriages (with kids who need their parents to have all the perks/rights of normally married parents dontcha know) so the Court can throw its hands up in the air and say "Oh, we've made the right choice pre-emptively in order to favor these poor kids!" is an impeachable offense.

The Justices have not even heard the counter-argument to how gay marriage actually harms children. I guess they've decided that the largest survey of its kind is outshadowed by cult-manufactured "science" for public consumption? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Are you two forgetting I've been addressing those questions over and over and over and over at this thread, you know, where that is the topic: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The topic of THIS thread is how the US Supreme Court is pre-loading the dice and eroding state laws in favor of gay marriage before the merits are even heard.

Still waiting for you to EVER explain how children will be harmed by 'gay marriage'.

 

[dcraelin]

They are taking the case only because a lower court ruled gay marriage bans are valid, and they are about to reverse that decision. They wouldn't even have bothered had the decision gone the other. There's no debate left, their minds were made up long ago. They just haven't written the decision because until recently they didn't need to, the lower were doing the job for them. All they were doing was waiting it out.
In June the gay marriage debate will be over. If you can read between the lines it already is.

exactly....and that is the point....instead of doing their grossly overpaid jobs. They have already made up their minds before they've had the case before them.

I wouldn't mind paying a decent unbiased, wise and seasoned SCOTUS Justice if they were worth their salt. But ACTIVELY eroding state laws without explanation or a hearing; when the topic of bestowing what essentially is a deviant-sex cult "special rights" before a Hearing is well, treason. I'll just call it what it actually is. Rock bottom this loading of the dice to pack tons more "legitimate" gay marriages (with kids who need their parents to have all the perks/rights of normally married parents dontcha know) so the Court can throw its hands up in the air and say "Oh, we've made the right choice pre-emptively in order to favor these poor kids!" is an impeachable offense.

The Justices have not even heard the counter-argument to how gay marriage actually harms children. I guess they've decided that the largest survey of its kind is outshadowed by cult-manufactured "science" for public consumption? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

All these federal judges are overpaid patronage recipients.....they get these jobs by kissing the right ass....

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

 

[Silhouette]

All these federal judges are overpaid patronage recipients.....they get these jobs by kissing the right ass....

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

This one though, just blatantly out there stacking the dice in favor of one set of litigants in advance of the Hearing AND defying their own interim law in Windsor 2013 to pitch favoritism to a litigious militant army/cult at the demise of an unlitigated question's impact (how gay marriage negatively impacts children of the opposite gender), when kids have no voice and cannot vote...handing preference to the mighty over the weak...is BEYOND THE PALE.

 

[Silhouette]

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

Do you think this or a more heavily packed republican Congress in 2016 would move to impeach any Justice so engaged in foreshadowing/actively stacking the dice in obvious bias in favor of just one set of litigants in a case pending and still yet to be Heard on the merits?

 

[mdk]

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

Do you think this or a more heavily packed republican Congress in 2016 would move to impeach any Justice so engaged in foreshadowing/actively stacking the dice in obvious bias in favor of just one set of litigants in a case pending and still yet to be Heard on the merits?

Please do. Sorry judges, we don't like the way you are likely to rule on gay marriage so we're going to impeach you. I highly doubt the GOP is going to spend it's political capital on impeaching judges b/c you are butt hurt about gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law while the question was pending, PARTICULARLY upon the moment they knew there was a split in the lower courts (last Fall when the 6th upheld Windsor/states' rights to ratify or not ratify gay marriage), there would be no move or reason for impeachment even if the Court ruled in favor of federally forcing gay marriage upon the states.

What we are dealing with here isn't the specific question of law, it is how the Court is mishandling justice at a fundamental level to favor one side of litigants while the Hearing on the merits is pending...

 

[Skylar]

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

Do you think this or a more heavily packed republican Congress in 2016 would move to impeach any Justice so engaged in foreshadowing/actively stacking the dice in obvious bias in favor of just one set of litigants in a case pending and still yet to be Heard on the merits?

You insisted that impeachments of federal judges would begin with the new congress. Not simply USSC justices, but federal circuit court justices who had ignored the Windsor ruling and violated the constitution.

So.....how many federal court justices were impeached with the new congress?

Just round to the nearest zero.

 

[Skylar]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law while the question was pending, PARTICULARLY upon the moment they knew there was a split in the lower courts (last Fall when the 6th upheld Windsor/states' rights to ratify or not ratify gay marriage), there would be no move or reason for impeachment even if the Court ruled in favor of federally forcing gay marriage upon the states.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being the whole 'interim law' nonsense. The USSC never ruled on the constitutionality of state same sex marriage bans or even mentioned them. How then could overturning such bans violation any 'interim law' on a topic that the USSC never addressed in Windsor?

Obviously, what you describe is quite impossible.

What the Windsor court did do was insist that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Every justice to overturn state gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. Making every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees perfectly in line with the Windsor ruling and its rationale.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

What we are dealing with here isn't the specific question of law, it is how the Court is mishandling justice at a fundamental level to favor one side of litigants while the Hearing on the merits is pending...

Says you. And as you demonstrated above, you don't know what you're talking about. Back in reality, the courts are required to assess the likelihood of success for Alabama's appeal when judging whether or not to grant a stay. And the court found no credible indication that Alabama's argument would prevail. Thus, they denied the stay.

You say this violates a 'fundamental level'. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

Do you think this or a more heavily packed republican Congress in 2016 would move to impeach any Justice so engaged in foreshadowing/actively stacking the dice in obvious bias in favor of just one set of litigants in a case pending and still yet to be Heard on the merits?

Of course not.