Liberals- Do you accept Supreme Court rulings/law completely, no exception?

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't have to like the rulings kiddos, but it is the law of the law. Either obey it or face, like Davis, the consequences...

 

[Silent Warrior]

The liberals might have it right. Think of all the tax money we can save now. With the SCOTUS making law we can fire congress and save all those salaries, perks and pensions. I'm sure today's liberals would have supported the Dred Scott decision at the time since now they are saying the SCOTUS is infallible.

What law(s) has SCOTUS made? Name them and if you can, their statute #.

Statute numbers come with laws passed by congress. If the SCOTUS were not making a law in this case there would still be no gay marriage. They said the constitution grants a right to gay marriage (though some would disagree, and I can't find a reference to gay marriage in it.) This means it can't be banned, but there is no law from congress allowing it. Therefore the decision has become law in fact if not name. Many courts are now making law. In one state on this same issue the state supreme court ruled a defense of marriage act (legislatively passed law) was unconstitutional. If it were only a court ruling the whole thing should have gone back to the way it was prior to the enactment of DOMA and gone back to the state legislature to iron out. Instead, the attorney general demanded the county's start issuing same sex marriage licenses and they did. You can play semantic games with the word law, but if it walks like a duck.........

 

[JakeStarkey]

No court is making law. They are interpreting case findings. And SCOTUS finds Marriage Equality is the law of the land.

 

[bodecea]

The liberals might have it right. Think of all the tax money we can save now. With the SCOTUS making law we can fire congress and save all those salaries, perks and pensions. I'm sure today's liberals would have supported the Dred Scott decision at the time since now they are saying the SCOTUS is infallible.

What law(s) has SCOTUS made? Name them and if you can, their statute #.

Statute numbers come with laws passed by congress. If the SCOTUS were not making a law in this case there would still be no gay marriage. They said the constitution grants a right to gay marriage (though some would disagree, and I can't find a reference to gay marriage in it.) This means it can't be banned, but there is no law from congress allowing it. Therefore the decision has become law in fact if not name. Many courts are now making law. In one state on this same issue the state supreme court ruled a defense of marriage act (legislatively passed law) was unconstitutional. If it were only a court ruling the whole thing should have gone back to the way it was prior to the enactment of DOMA and gone back to the state legislature to iron out. Instead, the attorney general demanded the county's start issuing same sex marriage licenses and they did. You can play semantic games with the word law, but if it walks like a duck.........

So there is not new law. Only the removal of an old law. That isn't creating a law...just like turning a light off doesn't create dark...or putting out a fire doesn't create cold. Just because you cannot see that taking a law away isn't creating a law, is not thinking adults' problem.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.

So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

Was there wiggle room with Brown v Board of Ed? With Gideon? With Torcaso v Watkins?

Yet you have no problem with Washington DC, Chicago and other major cities ignoring Heller, right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You don't have to like the rulings kiddos, but it is the law of the law. Either obey it or face, like Davis, the consequences...

You mean like How major cities are obeying Heller?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.
So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

Just the decisions they like.

 

[Silent Warrior]

The liberals might have it right. Think of all the tax money we can save now. With the SCOTUS making law we can fire congress and save all those salaries, perks and pensions. I'm sure today's liberals would have supported the Dred Scott decision at the time since now they are saying the SCOTUS is infallible.

What law(s) has SCOTUS made? Name them and if you can, their statute #.

Statute numbers come with laws passed by congress. If the SCOTUS were not making a law in this case there would still be no gay marriage. They said the constitution grants a right to gay marriage (though some would disagree, and I can't find a reference to gay marriage in it.) This means it can't be banned, but there is no law from congress allowing it. Therefore the decision has become law in fact if not name. Many courts are now making law. In one state on this same issue the state supreme court ruled a defense of marriage act (legislatively passed law) was unconstitutional. If it were only a court ruling the whole thing should have gone back to the way it was prior to the enactment of DOMA and gone back to the state legislature to iron out. Instead, the attorney general demanded the county's start issuing same sex marriage licenses and they did. You can play semantic games with the word law, but if it walks like a duck.........

So there is not new law. Only the removal of an old law. That isn't creating a law...just like turning a light off doesn't create dark...or putting out a fire doesn't create cold. Just because you cannot see that taking a law away isn't creating a law, is not thinking adults' problem.

Actually, turning a light off in a room with one light source does create dark. Putting out a fire, if it is the only source of heat, does create cold. Using your own type of logic, please point out where in the constitution gay marriage is mentioned. Actually, where is marriage of any kind mentioned. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other since it doesn't effect me, but I do care about our laws and our constitution being used to force personal preferences of nine individuals on the entire populace.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, turning a light off in a room with one light source does create dark. Putting out a fire, if it is the only source of heat, does create cold. Using your own type of logic, please point out where in the constitution gay marriage is mentioned. Actually, where is marriage of any kind mentioned. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other since it doesn't effect me, but I do care about our laws and our constitution being used to force personal preferences of nine individuals on the entire populace.

Fallacy of false equivalency.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The liberals might have it right. Think of all the tax money we can save now. With the SCOTUS making law we can fire congress and save all those salaries, perks and pensions. I'm sure today's liberals would have supported the Dred Scott decision at the time since now they are saying the SCOTUS is infallible.

What law(s) has SCOTUS made? Name them and if you can, their statute #.

Statute numbers come with laws passed by congress. If the SCOTUS were not making a law in this case there would still be no gay marriage. They said the constitution grants a right to gay marriage (though some would disagree, and I can't find a reference to gay marriage in it.) This means it can't be banned, but there is no law from congress allowing it. Therefore the decision has become law in fact if not name. Many courts are now making law. In one state on this same issue the state supreme court ruled a defense of marriage act (legislatively passed law) was unconstitutional. If it were only a court ruling the whole thing should have gone back to the way it was prior to the enactment of DOMA and gone back to the state legislature to iron out. Instead, the attorney general demanded the county's start issuing same sex marriage licenses and they did. You can play semantic games with the word law, but if it walks like a duck.........

So there is not new law. Only the removal of an old law. That isn't creating a law...just like turning a light off doesn't create dark...or putting out a fire doesn't create cold. Just because you cannot see that taking a law away isn't creating a law, is not thinking adults' problem.

Actually, turning a light off in a room with one light source does create dark. Putting out a fire, if it is the only source of heat, does create cold. Using your own type of logic, please point out where in the constitution gay marriage is mentioned. Actually, where is marriage of any kind mentioned. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other since it doesn't effect me, but I do care about our laws and our constitution being used to force personal preferences of nine individuals on the entire populace.

I hate to do this because I oppose gay marriage but the Constitution guarantees that all acts that are legal under the Constitution in any State will be honored by all the States. So unless the Court ruled that gays could not marry the only decision they could make is that since it is legal in a few States the rest have to honor those marriages.

 

[Silent Warrior]

The liberals might have it right. Think of all the tax money we can save now. With the SCOTUS making law we can fire congress and save all those salaries, perks and pensions. I'm sure today's liberals would have supported the Dred Scott decision at the time since now they are saying the SCOTUS is infallible.

What law(s) has SCOTUS made? Name them and if you can, their statute #.

Statute numbers come with laws passed by congress. If the SCOTUS were not making a law in this case there would still be no gay marriage. They said the constitution grants a right to gay marriage (though some would disagree, and I can't find a reference to gay marriage in it.) This means it can't be banned, but there is no law from congress allowing it. Therefore the decision has become law in fact if not name. Many courts are now making law. In one state on this same issue the state supreme court ruled a defense of marriage act (legislatively passed law) was unconstitutional. If it were only a court ruling the whole thing should have gone back to the way it was prior to the enactment of DOMA and gone back to the state legislature to iron out. Instead, the attorney general demanded the county's start issuing same sex marriage licenses and they did. You can play semantic games with the word law, but if it walks like a duck.........

So there is not new law. Only the removal of an old law. That isn't creating a law...just like turning a light off doesn't create dark...or putting out a fire doesn't create cold. Just because you cannot see that taking a law away isn't creating a law, is not thinking adults' problem.

Actually, turning a light off in a room with one light source does create dark. Putting out a fire, if it is the only source of heat, does create cold. Using your own type of logic, please point out where in the constitution gay marriage is mentioned. Actually, where is marriage of any kind mentioned. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other since it doesn't effect me, but I do care about our laws and our constitution being used to force personal preferences of nine individuals on the entire populace.

I hate to do this because I oppose gay marriage but the Constitution guarantees that all acts that are legal under the Constitution in any State will be honored by all the States. So unless the Court ruled that gays could not marry the only decision they could make is that since it is legal in a few States the rest have to honor those marriages.

I don't necessarily oppose gay marriage, but I don't think your legal in one state legal in all is correct. If you are referring to “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” it not cut and dried. As an example there are many different rules for ownership or concealed carry of firearms. Many of the same people that demand legal in one state legal in all for gay marriage oppose the same rule for firearms ownership unless of course it is to ban ownership. It still boils down to what the nine people is the robes have as their own opinion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.

So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

Not the final say if someone can get a Constitutional Amendment thru...case in point, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments cancelled out Dred Scott...and a reversal of the Court works too if you can convince them...case in point, Brown v. Board of Ed cancelling out Plessy v. Ferguson. But, here's the rub....both ways require years of legal groundwork....it doesn't happen by just whining on the internet.

Correct....

Roe v. Wade has been essentially ringed and shrunken by the efforts of people at the state levels.

I am not saying to the betterment or detriment of anyone....I am just saying it has happened.

Over time.......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Decisions made by the Supreme Court are the law of the land, as was the original intent of the Founding Generation expressed in Article VI of the Constitution.

Whether one 'agrees' with the decisions or not, or 'likes' the decisions or not is irrelevant.

To their credit liberals understand these facts, even when they disagree with a ruling they accept the jurisprudence and abide by it.

Unlike most conservatives, one doesn't hear liberals whining about how the Supreme Court 'doesn't have the authority' to determine what the Constitution means.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Heller is safe; Citizens United is only a matter of time before being overturned.

Both Heller and Citizens United are 'safe,' in that they are accepted and settled case law, where there are no efforts to 'overturn' either, nor will either be 'voided' by an 'amendment' to the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.

So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

Was there wiggle room with Brown v Board of Ed? With Gideon? With Torcaso v Watkins?

Yet you have no problem with Washington DC, Chicago and other major cities ignoring Heller, right?

Wrong.

Neither jurisdiction is 'ignoring' Heller.

Neither city has 'banned' the possession of firearms.

 

[candycorn]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.

So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

When the rulings overturn a law barring you from doing something; sure. They do not make law; they rule on the constitutionality of the law. Open a 4th grade textbook sometime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Supreme Court rulings do not 'write new laws.'

Supreme Court rulings do not 'change' the Constitution.

Supreme Court rulings do not 'repeal' laws.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means with regard to a given case under review, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

In Obergefell, for example, invalidating measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, the Court consistently and appropriately applied settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence to the issue, where that settled and accepted jurisprudence holds that the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law for no other reason than who they are; the states may not deny a class of persons access to marriage law solely because of their religion, solely because of their race, or solely because of their sexual orientation – indeed, Obergefell concerned the fundamental principles of due process and equal protection of the law more so than the sexual orientation of the petitioners.

Last, those state measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law remain on the books or part of a given state's constitution, whichever the case, measures which have not been 'repealed' but instead are unenforceable because they are un-Constitutional.

 

[Asclepias]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.

So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

Youre a fucking idiot. Any law can be questioned or disobeyed. You cant break the law doing it and not expect consequences. I think thats what seems to confuse idiots like you.

 

[Skylar]

So it appears there's gonna be absolutely no wiggle room in the homo marriage ruling. Absolutely none. And liberals are all of a sudden law and order champions.

So I ask....libs...do you see all SCOTUS rulings as the final say, absolute law, not to be questioned or ever disobeyed?

What 'wiggle room' are you looking for? That anyone with religion can ignore any law or ruling they don't like for any reason?

That's not 'wiggle room'. That's a hole you could pilot a battle ship through. What your ilk are demanding is a religious based Sovereign Citizen argument where religion trumps any civil law and the State can force people to abide the religious beliefs of any official.

But only if they're Christian.

No thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The liberals might have it right. Think of all the tax money we can save now. With the SCOTUS making law we can fire congress and save all those salaries, perks and pensions. I'm sure today's liberals would have supported the Dred Scott decision at the time since now they are saying the SCOTUS is infallible.

What law(s) has SCOTUS made? Name them and if you can, their statute #.

Statute numbers come with laws passed by congress. If the SCOTUS were not making a law in this case there would still be no gay marriage. They said the constitution grants a right to gay marriage (though some would disagree, and I can't find a reference to gay marriage in it.) This means it can't be banned, but there is no law from congress allowing it. Therefore the decision has become law in fact if not name. Many courts are now making law. In one state on this same issue the state supreme court ruled a defense of marriage act (legislatively passed law) was unconstitutional. If it were only a court ruling the whole thing should have gone back to the way it was prior to the enactment of DOMA and gone back to the state legislature to iron out. Instead, the attorney general demanded the county's start issuing same sex marriage licenses and they did. You can play semantic games with the word law, but if it walks like a duck.........

So there is not new law. Only the removal of an old law. That isn't creating a law...just like turning a light off doesn't create dark...or putting out a fire doesn't create cold. Just because you cannot see that taking a law away isn't creating a law, is not thinking adults' problem.

Actually, turning a light off in a room with one light source does create dark. Putting out a fire, if it is the only source of heat, does create cold. Using your own type of logic, please point out where in the constitution gay marriage is mentioned. Actually, where is marriage of any kind mentioned. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other since it doesn't effect me, but I do care about our laws and our constitution being used to force personal preferences of nine individuals on the entire populace.

I hate to do this because I oppose gay marriage but the Constitution guarantees that all acts that are legal under the Constitution in any State will be honored by all the States. So unless the Court ruled that gays could not marry the only decision they could make is that since it is legal in a few States the rest have to honor those marriages.

Funny, then, how my OH CCW permit is not honored in IL.