Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Ah yes....the old "Case Law". The battle cry of the fascist progressive furious that the U.S. Constitution prevents them from enforcing their bat-shit crazy views on their fellow American citizens.

Sorry snowflake - but "Case Law" is a made up left-wing term. Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where it states that Supreme Court rulings instantly become constitutional law? Where exactly is this mysterious "Case Law Clause"? If you can't show it (and....I assure you.....you can't) - then it doesn't exist. And you're just another frustrated progressive snowflake spreading propaganda to push your bat-shit crazy agenda.

I find it hard to believe just how fucking stupid you are!! Do you ever read and research anything before you spout off, or are just so delusional that you have convinced yourself that you actually know this stuff.??

case law

Legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions that are derived from the application of particular areas of law to the facts of individual cases.

As opposed to statutes—legislative acts that proscribe certain conduct by demanding or prohibiting something or that declare the legality of particular acts—case law is a dynamic and constantly developing body of law. Each case contains a portion wherein the facts of the controversy are set forth as well as the holding and dicta—an explanation of how the judge arrived at a particular conclusion. In addition, a case might contain concurring and dissenting opinions of other judges.

Since the U.S. legal system has a common-law system, higher court decisions are binding on lower courts in cases with similar facts that raise similar issues. The concept of precedent, or Stare Decisis, means to follow or adhere to previously decided cases in judging the case at bar. It means that appellate case law should be considered as binding upon lower courts.

Since you apparently need to be spoon fed everything, this means that in the case of same sex marriage, states were in fact instantly bound to adhere to that ruling.. It became law just as surely as if it were passed by congress. It is a binding precedent that can only be overturned by SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment. It is constitutional, or more accurately unconstitutional to prohibit same sex marriage

As for the origins, our legal system is rooted in English common law .English Law And Doctrine Called Binding Precedent | Law Teacher

Here is more: Precedent - constitution | Laws.com

The ability for Supreme Court precedence to function as a force in the lives of Americans originates from the nation’s colonial roots in the governmental and legal system of England, which operates by the principle of common law, in which laws are developed through the decisions of judges and other authorities rather than placed in decisively fixed form. Judicial precedence is thus the essential cornerstone of this system, as is embodied in the Latin phrase stare decisis. Meaning “maintain what has been decided,” this principle holds that judicial decisions should be consistent with each other.

Now shut up!

 

[Syriusly]

You and the so called Patriot are mentally, emotionally and morally defective. Thread is supposed to be about the serious issue of raising children, not withstanding the bad start and ill intent of the OP. You have both made it abundantly clear that you hate gays more than you care about those kids and will stop at nothing- including the use of those kids as pawns and expendable collateral damage in your war on equality. You should both be ashamed of your lies and distortion of facts. You will now forever be ignored.

I just don't support forcing all of society to engage in their homosexuality .

And no one is suggesting forcing anyone to engage in homosexuality or heterosexuality.

So we are in agreement.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Ah yes....the old "Case Law". The battle cry of the fascist progressive furious that the U.S. Constitution prevents them from enforcing their bat-shit crazy views on their fellow American citizens.

Sorry snowflake - but "Case Law" is a made up left-wing term. Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where it states that Supreme Court rulings instantly become constitutional law? Where exactly is this mysterious "Case Law Clause"? If you can't show it (and....I assure you.....you can't) - then it doesn't exist. And you're just another frustrated progressive snowflake spreading propaganda to push your bat-shit crazy agenda.

To continue your education assuming that you are educable :

Marbury vs. Madison and Judicial Review
The US Constitution did not specifically provide the judicial branch with the power of judicial review. However, an issue arose when Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, would not deliver commissions to judges who were appointed during the last days of John Adam's term in office. They could not take their position without the commission being delivered. One of those judges, Wiliam Marbury, took the issue before the Supreme Court in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison. He asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ ordering the commission be delivered based on the Judiciary Act

However, John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowing for the Writ of Mandamus was unconstitutional.

This action established the precedent of Judicial Branch of the government to declare a law unconstitutional. This decision was key in helping to place the Judicial Branch on a more even footing with the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.

Expansion of Judicial Review
Over the years, the US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings that have struck down laws and executive actions as unconstitutional. In fact, they have been able to expand their powers of judicial review. For example, by 1821 their power was expanded to review state criminal court cases in Cohens v. Virginia. In Cooper v. Aaron in 1958, the Supreme Court expanded the power so that it could deem any action by any branch of a state's government to be unconstitutional. What Is Judicial Review?

So know it was not in the body of the original document, but that fact is a far cry from your moronic assertion that it is something made up by liberals and not a real thing, just because you don't like it

 

[P@triot]

So know no it was not in the body of the original document, but that fact is a far cry from your moronic assertion that it is something made up by liberals and not a real thing, just because you don't like it

You're illiteracy aside - Marbury vs. Madison supports what I've stated all along on multiple levels.

For starters - it acknowledges that the powers you want to believe exists, don't. Way to prove my point for me.

Second, the only thing Marbury vs. Madison did was rule something unconstitutional. It said that the Supreme Court had the power to stop unconstitutional government. It did not say that the Supreme Court could create law. That's two vastly separate things.

Third - the example is nonsensical. Your position is "case law exists because case law exists - and I'll prove it by pointing to previous case law". Uhhhh.....ok?!? Just because the Supreme Court did something, doesn't mean they had the power to do it and it doesn't mean they should do it again and again because a past Supreme Court was drunk with power.

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution the "Case Law Clause" is covered. Article and Section. If you can't - then shut the fuck up because you look like a fool. I'm trying to do you a favor snowflake.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So know no it was not in the body of the original document, but that fact is a far cry from your moronic assertion that it is something made up by liberals and not a real thing, just because you don't like it

You're illiteracy aside - Marbury vs. Madison supports what I've stated all along on multiple levels.

For starters - it acknowledges that the powers you want to believe exists, don't. Way to prove my point for me.

Second, the only thing Marbury vs. Madison did was rule something unconstitutional. It said that the Supreme Court had the power to stop unconstitutional government. It did not say that the Supreme Court could create law. That's two vastly separate things.

Third - the example is nonsensical. Your position is "case law exists because case law exists - and I'll prove it by pointing to previous case law". Uhhhh.....ok?!? Just because the Supreme Court did something, doesn't mean they had the power to do it and it doesn't mean they should do it again and again because a past Supreme Court was drunk with power.

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution the "Case Law Clause" is covered. Article and Section. If you can't - then shut the fuck up because you look like a fool. I'm trying to do you a favor snowflake.

Look my pet rock, yes you are as dense as a rock so that is my new name for you. It can be and has been argued that judicial review actually existed before Marbury :

Judicial Review Before Marbury | Stanford Law Review

Marbury, more than creating it, formalized it. Interesting how you ignore the history of English Common Law that I presented

The court never "made law" That is just more stupidity and the bigot's favorite talking point.

And yes case law exists because case law exists. You exist ( unfortunately ) because you....exist. So what? Does that make the existence of anything less real?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---- Your ButtSoSore needs immediate medical attention. Get yourself to the nearest Doc in the Box.

 

[P@triot]

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Let's apply liberal "logic" to every part of life - shall we?

You're coming home from work at the end of the day. It's slightly overcast. You're in your development which is a standard development (lots of houses, children playing, pets running, people biking, etc.). As such - the speed limit is 25MPH. You're going 23MPH when suddenly you see police lights in your rearview mirror.

Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
You: "No sir"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "You was speed'n"
You: "I was going 23MPH in a 25MPH"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. But it's overcast today. On an overcast day, our judge ruled you can't see as well and thus that 25MPH is dangerous and exceeds the speed limit"
You: "What?!? When? How am I supposed to know that?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. Don't care - ignorance of the law is no excuse".
You: "Why is that posted on the Speed Limit signs?!?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "It's not a law. It's what we prooo-gressives like to refer to as 'case law' when we get together. The judge rules on it - and it magically becomes law".
You: "So why didn't you just make it official law?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Well.....we tried. We managed to get it onto the ballot last November but the people overwhelmingly voted it down".
You: "So if the people don't support that - why is it being done"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Son....I told ya's. We is proo-gressives. That thar is just a fancy way of say'n fascist. We don't care what the law says. We don't care what the people want. If we can't get what we's want the legal way - we'll get it through executive fiat. Like that thar 'Case Law' stuff. Here's you're $150 ticket son. Have a nice day".
You: "Officer? Before you go. So what is the speed limit on an overcast day?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "HaHaHaHa. That depends son. Depends on how overcast it is".
You: "Well if I don't know the exact law - how can I comply with it?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. See ya's soon boy".

Literally nobody in the world will ever attempt to make a serious case that this example is a way to create and enforce law. Nobody. Even the biggest progressive asshole in the world would never attempt to support this when it comes to a silly little speed limit. Yet that is exactly what they are doing with the highest, most important law in the land. If what is written doesn't matter, and progressives can "reinterpret" it, "misinterpret" it, and "disinterpret" it any time they want - how in the hell can Americans be compliant?!? You can't comply with a law that is "living, breathing".

That's why law is written in black and white, made painfully clear, and not "living, breathing". It is impossible to comply with an ambiguous law open to the interpretation of bat-shit crazy progressives.

Do you realize how fuck'n stupid you sound now ProgressivePatriot?!?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

/---- Your ButtSoSore needs immediate medical attention. Get yourself to the nearest Doc in the Box.

Who are you addressing? Did ya notice the button in the lower right corner that is marked "reply" ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Let's apply liberal "logic" to every part of life - shall we?

You're coming home from work at the end of the day. It's slightly overcast. You're in your development which is a standard development (lots of houses, children playing, pets running, people biking, etc.). As such - the speed limit is 25MPH. You're going 23MPH when suddenly you see police lights in your rearview mirror.

Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
You: "No sir"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "You was speed'n"
You: "I was going 23MPH in a 25MPH"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. But it's overcast today. On an overcast day, our judge ruled you can't see as well and thus that 25MPH is dangerous and exceeds the speed limit"
You: "What?!? When? How am I supposed to know that?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. Don't care - ignorance of the law is no excuse".
You: "Why is that posted on the Speed Limit signs?!?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "It's not a law. It's what we prooo-gressives like to refer to as 'case law' when we get together. The judge rules on it - and it magically becomes law".
You: "So why didn't you just make it official law?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Well.....we tried. We managed to get it onto the ballot last November but the people overwhelmingly voted it down".
You: "So if the people don't support that - why is it being done"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Son....I told ya's. We is proo-gressives. That thar is just a fancy way of say'n fascist. We don't care what the law says. We don't care what the people want. If we can't get what we's want the legal way - we'll get it through executive fiat. Like that thar 'Case Law' stuff. Here's you're $150 ticket son. Have a nice day".
You: "Officer? Before you go. So what is the speed limit on an overcast day?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "HaHaHaHa. That depends son. Depends on how overcast it is".
You: "Well if I don't know the exact law - how can I comply with it?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. See ya's soon boy".

Literally nobody in the world will ever attempt to make a serious case that this example is a way to create and enforce law. Nobody. Even the biggest progressive asshole in the world would never attempt to support this when it comes to a silly little speed limit. Yet that is exactly what they are doing with the highest, most important law in the land. If what is written doesn't matter, and progressives can "reinterpret" it, "misinterpret" it, and "disinterpret" it any time they way - how in the hell can Americans be compliant?!? You can't comply with a law that is "living, breathing".

That's why law is written in black and white, made painfully clear, and not "living, breathing". It is impossible to comply with an ambiguous law open to the interpretation of bat-shit crazy progressives.

Do you realize how fuck'n stupid you sound now ProgressivePatriot?!?

 

[P@triot]

While marriage is not an enumerated right in the original document, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that it is a right- that is called case law incase you don't know and I don't think that you do. Case law carries the force of law and becomes part of the body of constitutional law.

Let's apply liberal "logic" to every part of life - shall we?

You go for a walk one early evening. On your way back home, a muslim maniac attacks you with a machete. You pull out your conceal carry handgun, hit him multiple times center mass, dropping him. You call 911, law enforcement and paramedics arrive on the scene. They are unable to save the muslim maniac and he dies.

Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "You're under arrest"
You: "For what?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Fer whut? You killed that boy. Thas murder"
You: "Murder? He tried to kill me! He came at me with a machete screaming 'allah akbar'. There is the machete right there and the Go Pro camera I was wearing shows the attack"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. I knows use was tell'n the truth. I never doubted that for a moment. But it's still murder"
You: "What?!? How?!?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Thas right. We gots us a judge here and he ruled that responding to deadly force with a firearm constitutes murder no matter what. He calls it 'Case Law'. You could have fought that thar mooslum with a machete - but your firearm gave you an unneeded advantage. It wasn't fair to that mooslum".
You: "That's not the law?!?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "It is now. It's what we prooo-gressives like to refer to as 'case law' when we get together. The judge rules on it - and it magically becomes law".
You: "So why didn't you just make it official law?"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Well.....we tried. We managed to get it onto the ballot last November but the people overwhelmingly voted it down".
You: "So if the people don't support that - why is it being done"
Officer (in that deep southern drawl): "Son....I told ya's. We is proo-gressives. That thar is just a fancy way of say'n fascist. We don't care what the law says. We don't care what the people want. If we can't get what we's want the legal way - we'll get it through executive fiat. Like that thar 'Case Law' stuff. Use be'n booked for murder".

Literally nobody in the world will ever attempt to make a serious case that this example is a way to create and enforce law. Nobody. Even the biggest progressive asshole in the world would never attempt to support this. Yet that is exactly what they are doing with the highest, most important law in the land. If what is written doesn't matter, and progressives can "reinterpret" it, "misinterpret" it, and "disinterpret" it any time they want - how in the hell can Americans be compliant?!? You can't comply with a law that is "living, breathing".

That's why law is written in black and white, made painfully clear, and not "living, breathing". It is impossible to comply with an ambiguous law open to the interpretation of bat-shit crazy progressives.