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

[Syriusly]

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?

Do I accept that Supreme Court rulings are the final legal determination of a law? Absolutely.

Does that mean I have to agree with the ruling, or not criticize it? Of course not- I think Citizens United was an abomination- but the ruling is legally binding.

If I want to change Citizens United, I should be working on passing a Constitutional Amendment so that entities that cannot vote or be sent to jail if convicted of a crime cannot contribute to political campaigns.

So- I ask all Cons....do you see all SCOTUS rulings as invalid? Or do you only accept as binding the ones you agree with?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Your OHCCW does not fit within ". . . all acts that are legal under the Constitution in any State . . .".

 

[kwc57]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

 

[Skylar]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

The states are constitutionally required to respect contracts and the like from other states. Its the Full faith and Credit clause. Marriage most definitely falls under that. Open carry permits, not so much. As those are inherently jurisdictional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

The states are constitutionally required to respect contracts and the like from other states. Its the Full faith and Credit clause. Marriage most definitely falls under that. Open carry permits, not so much. As those are inherently jurisdictional.

How do CCW licenses not fully fall under the FF&CC while marriage licenses do?
Please note that Illinois, specifically, issues CCW permits and may not constitutionality deny the right to carry a gun outside the home.

 

[Skylar]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

The states are constitutionally required to respect contracts and the like from other states. Its the Full faith and Credit clause. Marriage most definitely falls under that. Open carry permits, not so much. As those are inherently jurisdictional.

How do CCW licenses not fully fall under the FF&CC while marriage licenses do?
Please note that Illinois, specifically, issues CCW permits and may not constitutionality deny the right to carry a gun outside the home.

They're inherently jurisdictional. If you got a reseller's license in California and then went to New York, you'd need to get another in New York. Open carry falls under the same category of permits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

The states are constitutionally required to respect contracts and the like from other states. Its the Full faith and Credit clause. Marriage most definitely falls under that. Open carry permits, not so much. As those are inherently jurisdictional.

How do CCW licenses not fully fall under the FF&CC while marriage licenses do?
Please note that Illinois, specifically, issues CCW permits and may not constitutionality deny the right to carry a gun outside the home.

They're inherently jurisdictional

This differs in what meaningful way from marriage licenses?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

The states are constitutionally required to respect contracts and the like from other states. Its the Full faith and Credit clause. Marriage most definitely falls under that. Open carry permits, not so much. As those are inherently jurisdictional.

How do CCW licenses not fully fall under the FF&CC while marriage licenses do?
Please note that Illinois, specifically, issues CCW permits and may not constitutionality deny the right to carry a gun outside the home.

They're inherently jurisdictional

This differs in what meaningful way from marriage licenses?

What do you mean by meaningful?

 

[kwc57]

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.

In Oklahoma, it is legal for me to own and carry a firearm in public. Are you saying I can wear it on my hip in Chicago or DC since Oklahoma says it is legal? Remember, unlike marriage, I actually do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. So I'm good carrying anywhere, right?

The states are constitutionally required to respect contracts and the like from other states. Its the Full faith and Credit clause. Marriage most definitely falls under that. Open carry permits, not so much. As those are inherently jurisdictional.

Ahhh, the old Bill Clinton, "it depends on what the meaning of is is". This is kind of like claiming "science" on global warming while denying science on GMO's or when life begins. It all depends on your ideological view. Marriage permits must be respected by other states, but not open carry. Got it.