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.
Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.
Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.
That was easy.
Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.
Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.
I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about
I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time.
I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about
Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.
Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.
That was easy.
Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.
Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.
I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about
I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking aboutSounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.
Windsor was a Ruling where the Court most recently upheld states voices in this ongoing debate. I think this June's Ruling will be an affirmation instead of a reversal.
Without a doubt. Jesus has better odds on returning than the SC dumping this back on the states. The ruling is obvious, likely 6-3 or 7-2. It's the Loving of today.I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking aboutSounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.
Windsor was a Ruling where the Court most recently upheld states voices in this ongoing debate. I think this June's Ruling will be an affirmation instead of a reversal.
Windsor was a ruling where the courts place constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. I think June's ruling with affirm that constitutional guarantees still trump state marriage laws.
Without a doubt. Jesus has better odds on returning than the SC dumping this back on the states. The ruling is obviously, likely 6-3 or 7-2. It's the Loving of today.I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking aboutSounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.
Windsor was a Ruling where the Court most recently upheld states voices in this ongoing debate. I think this June's Ruling will be an affirmation instead of a reversal.
Windsor was a ruling where the courts place constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. I think June's ruling with affirm that constitutional guarantees still trump state marriage laws.
Since when is a judges activism evaluated by how many other activist judges they are? Your reasoning, as usual, is myopic.Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.
Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.
Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.
I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about
Oh, you're confused. I'm not debating the efficacy of same sex marriage with the posts you're responding to. I'm dismantling the ''activist judges' schtick. If it were merely 'activist judges', then we'd expect to see 1, maybe 2 such rulings.
Instead we see 44 of 46. With 95% of the rulings going in one direction. And one or two going the other. By any rational measure, the '1 or 2' would be judicial activists. The 44 of 46 would be judicial consensus.
Now if you'd like to discuss same sex marriage......different topic. And I'm totally down. Gay marriage bans lack a rational basis, they serve no legitimate state interest, and they serve no valid legislative end.
Failing the standards set in Romer v. Evans when assessing a given laws compatibility with the 14th amendment. Which might explain the 44 of 46 federal rulings finding the same thing.
SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
“Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.”
Ignorant nonsense.
Judges following established, settled, and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence does not make them 'activist'; indeed, for judges to ignore that established, settled, and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence would constitute activism – such as the Sixth Circuit's ruling, which was not unanimous.
From the dissenting judge:
“The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://www.sixthcircuitappellateblo...-Circuit-Gay-Marriage-Opinion-14a0275p-06.pdf
No, that's impossible. Because at the end of Windsor the Court said that gay marriage was only legal in 11 states. The evidence on its face proves the Court intended to respect state sovereignty on the question at the end of their decision.Windsor was a ruling where the courts place constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. I think June's ruling with affirm that constitutional guarantees still trump state marriage laws.
They didn't rule substantively on those stay-denials. So it's anyone's guess. Suffice to say their line of questioning at this Hearing suggests the pivotal Justices may have rethought their logic. Fundamentally torpedoing a thousands-year-old definition to institutionally-alienate boys from their fathers or girls from their mothers might have loomed a bit daunting as the 11th hour approached. Imagine shouldering that burden for an entire society forever? I wouldn't want that responsibility/impact sitting on my shoulders when I drew my last breath and did a life review. I think the Court is smart for wanting everyone on board with this one and not just their Godlike Mandate.
Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?
I don't think so.
No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.
They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.
I don't think so.
No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.
Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.
Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.
That was easy.
No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.
Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.
Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.
That was easy.
Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.
Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.
Since when is a judges activism evaluated by how many other activist judges they are? Your reasoning, as usual, is myopic.Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.
Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.
I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about
Oh, you're confused. I'm not debating the efficacy of same sex marriage with the posts you're responding to. I'm dismantling the ''activist judges' schtick. If it were merely 'activist judges', then we'd expect to see 1, maybe 2 such rulings.
Instead we see 44 of 46. With 95% of the rulings going in one direction. And one or two going the other. By any rational measure, the '1 or 2' would be judicial activists. The 44 of 46 would be judicial consensus.
Now if you'd like to discuss same sex marriage......different topic. And I'm totally down. Gay marriage bans lack a rational basis, they serve no legitimate state interest, and they serve no valid legislative end.
Failing the standards set in Romer v. Evans when assessing a given laws compatibility with the 14th amendment. Which might explain the 44 of 46 federal rulings finding the same thing.
It wasn't "truly bizarre" for Sutton to have ruled consistent with Windsor. See post #213 for details...
