States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[SillyWabbit]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

Then the Feds step in, and they have, many times before.

What exactly would the Feds do? Send in the troops?

 

[Camp]

I'm thankful that hard core racist are such dumb people.

I agree. All these crazy libs fighting for affirmative action are the dumbest people in america - thank god.

You just keep digging in deeper. The lib's won on affirmative action. It was meant to be a temporary fix. Challenges to affirmative action today are new contest whose boundaries can and probably will be changed as legislation is adjusted and changed.

 

[Camp]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

Then the Feds step in, and they have, many times before.

What exactly would the Feds do? Send in the troops?

Yes, absolutely. They did it under orders from Eisenhower and Johnson. In the case of Johnson, not only were National Guard troops federalized, but the 101st Airborne paratroopers were sent, allegedly to back up the Guard, but most believe to insure the Guard followed orders form Regular Army chain of Command, including direct orders from the CIC.

 

[Nosmo King]

I
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

So how do you reconcile that with the constitution quote i just gave that says only congress can write laws. THINK

SCOTUS did not write a law. They ruled on the constitutionality of a law. SCOTUS neither repealed, instated, wrote or concocted any law. What they did was find that banning our fellow American citizens from the rights and protections afforded under the marriage contract is unconstitutional.

Why is extending rights to each and every American citizen and tax payer such a jagged little pill for Conservatives to swallow?

 

[SillyWabbit]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

Then the Feds step in, and they have, many times before.

What exactly would the Feds do? Send in the troops?

Yes, absolutely. They did it under orders from Eisenhower and Johnson. In the case of Johnson, not only were National Guard troops federalized, but the 101st Airborne paratroopers were sent, allegedly to back up the Guard, but most believe to insure the Guard followed orders form Regular Army chain of Command, including direct orders from the CIC.

Man, if the federal government sends in troops to enforce gay marriage, then I'll know for certain the world's gone batshit crazy. Although, it would make for some great TV.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read Marbury v. Madison.

That was where the scotus GRANTED themselves the authority to rewrite and repeal laws. The constitution itself says they don't have it. Read the first sentence of the constitution after the preamble. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

You are yet wrong again. Article III says SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on maters constitutional. Think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

 

[Camp]

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

Then the Feds step in, and they have, many times before.

What exactly would the Feds do? Send in the troops?

Yes, absolutely. They did it under orders from Eisenhower and Johnson. In the case of Johnson, not only were National Guard troops federalized, but the 101st Airborne paratroopers were sent, allegedly to back up the Guard, but most believe to insure the Guard followed orders form Regular Army chain of Command, including direct orders from the CIC.

Man, if the federal government sends in troops to enforce gay marriage, then I'll know for certain the world's gone batshit crazy. Although, it would make for some great TV.

That will' not be necessary. Legal action will probably cause the state to succumb to federal court orders. To much reliance on federal funding for the locals and states to put up much of a fight.

 

[Silhouette]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

Yeah, I can see troops hauling off Christians for following the New Testament's dire warnings to not enable the spread of homosexual culture. Should really pile up the votes for democrats in 2016...lol.. NOT.

That little old election coming up next year is going to put the kaibosh on the democrat jack boot thuggery. They should join ISIS because they both believe in rough treatment of Christians for the exercise of their faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, just like the did with the KKK and the county courts in the 1960s. Keep raving, Priestess Sil.

Our GOP is going to win next year, and there is nothing we will do to change the law.

 

[Nosmo King]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

Yeah, I can see troops hauling off Christians for following the New Testament's dire warnings to not enable the spread of homosexual culture. Should really pile up the votes for democrats in 2016...lol.. NOT.

That little old election coming up next year is going to put the kaibosh on the democrat jack boot thuggery. They should join ISIS because they both believe in rough treatment of Christians for the exercise of their faith.

Are you expecting us to all believe that there are so many homophobic merchants looking for cover, not in the basic tenets of their faith which says love your neighbor as you would be loved yourself, but in an obscure passage that does not clearly state a religious mandate to shun homosexuals, that those merchants will be of sufficient number and persuasive rhetoric to over turn this decision? To swing a national election?

Extending liberty to all Americans is far more persuasive than pulling the rug of liberty out from under our fellow American citizens.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you expecting us to all believe that there are so many homophobic merchants looking for cover, not in the basic tenets of their faith which says love your neighbor as you would be loved yourself, but in an obscure passage that does not clearly state a religious mandate to shun homosexuals, that those merchants will be of sufficient number and persuasive rhetoric to over turn this decision? To swing a national election?

Extending liberty to all Americans is far more persuasive than pulling the rug of liberty out from under our fellow American citizens.

New Testament dire warnings about eternity in hell/soul death are going to rise above any of your jibberty-jabberty. Stay tuned. It's coming..

 

[SillyWabbit]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

Well, maybe. It's not quite as dramatic as the Army waging war on states for defying Federal edict, but it would be a worthy diversion from Chopped--at least for a night or two.

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you expecting us to all believe that there are so many homophobic merchants looking for cover, not in the basic tenets of their faith which says love your neighbor as you would be loved yourself, but in an obscure passage that does not clearly state a religious mandate to shun homosexuals, that those merchants will be of sufficient number and persuasive rhetoric to over turn this decision? To swing a national election?

Extending liberty to all Americans is far more persuasive than pulling the rug of liberty out from under our fellow American citizens.

New Testament dire warnings about eternity in hell/soul death are going to rise above any of your jibberty-jabberty. Stay tuned. It's coming..

My 'jibberty jabberty' is based on the constitution of the United States. You7r's, however, is based on the Bible which does not rule this nation. We are, thank God, a nation of laws, not a Theocracy. If you want scripture to run a nation, I suggest Saudi Arabia might be the place for you.

 

[paddymurphy]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

Then the Feds step in, and they have, many times before.

What exactly would the Feds do? Send in the troops?

Google Little Rock. 1956.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

Well, maybe. It's not quite as dramatic as the Army waging war on states for defying Federal edict, but it would be a worthy diversion from Chopped--at least for a night or two.

Since they will be personally liable, in no time at all they will be back to issuing licenses, to gay and straight couples.

 

[SillyWabbit]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

Well, maybe. It's not quite as dramatic as the Army waging war on states for defying Federal edict, but it would be a worthy diversion from Chopped--at least for a night or two.

Since they will be personally liable, in no time at all they will be back to issuing licenses, to gay and straight couples.

Now, don't be so negative. The potential for Great TV is staring right at us: imagine hundreds of good Christian souls across the nation standing up to the Tyranny of the Federal Government. Middle-aged white folk being hauled off to jail, unwilling to perform the Devil's work. That's some great TV--not as good as bullets flying and APC's rolling down Main Street--but a close second.

 

[guno]

When the municipality's start getting sued , they will fold like cheap religious tracts

 

[bendog]

There will be no troops. State Police and federal marshals will turn out any county officials who defy the law. Still good TV.

Well, maybe. It's not quite as dramatic as the Army waging war on states for defying Federal edict, but it would be a worthy diversion from Chopped--at least for a night or two.

Since they will be personally liable, in no time at all they will be back to issuing licenses, to gay and straight couples.

Now, don't be so negative. The potential for Great TV is staring right at us: imagine hundreds of good Christian souls across the nation standing up to the Tyranny of the Federal Government. Middle-aged white folk being hauled off to jail, unwilling to perform the Devil's work. That's some great TV--not as good as bullets flying and APC's rolling down Main Street--but a close second.

Jack Booted Black Armor Clad Storm Troopers from Homeland Security tasering some elderly white Christian court clerk, and as she falls to the ground, they pillory her with nightsticks, before cuffing her hands behind her back, and drag her by her ankles towards their armored assault vehicle, her bloody head bouncing along the ground.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.

The judges aren't repealing laws. The laws simply become unenforceable. Hell there are still Jim Crow laws on the books in some states.