The Judicial branch, the only way to promote the liberal agenda

[shintao]

As well as taking away the will of the people

This coming from the side that claims to love the Constitution

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

Maybe you should spend some time reading Supreme Court decisions to better understand where the power of Consititutional law for those decisions was derived from. Gay rights concern discrimination and equal rights. A state cannot make a law that is not derived from US Constitutional law, and a claim to an unborn child is in place in the case of murder by a third party. You might try reading Roe vs and other decisions on the subject. http://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

[JRK]

This coming from the side that claims to love the Constitution

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

Maybe you should spend some time reading Supreme Court decisions to better understand where the power of Consititutional law for those decisions was derived from. Gay rights concern discrimination and equal rights. A state cannot make a law that is not derived from US Constitutional law, and a claim to an unborn child is in place in the case of murder by a third party. You might try reading Roe vs and other decisions on the subject. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

There you have it
It is how the law is seen
you make vaild points, but again like I stated before, equal rights never talked to gays. The correct path is to have the will of the people speak to that
they did
If the state votes to allow, so be it

What amazes me is the Dems had close to a super majority from 09-10
why was this issue not mandated by legeslation then?
why is it abortion has no legeslative history?
WHat fear is there to put those issues before the people?

There independant of any laws passed by the legeslative branch and Kennedy with the gay right issue reached for a low hanging fruit that does not exist by law

I respect your thread

 

[shintao]

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

Maybe you should spend some time reading Supreme Court decisions to better understand where the power of Consititutional law for those decisions was derived from. Gay rights concern discrimination and equal rights. A state cannot make a law that is not derived from US Constitutional law, and a claim to an unborn child is in place in the case of murder by a third party. You might try reading Roe vs and other decisions on the subject. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

There you have it
It is how the law is seen
you make vaild points, but again like I stated before, equal rights never talked to gays. The correct path is to have the will of the people speak to that
they did
If the state votes to allow, so be it

What amazes me is the Dems had close to a super majority from 09-10
why was this issue not mandated by legeslation then?
why is it abortion has no legeslative history?
WHat fear is there to put those issues before the people?

There independant of any laws passed by the legeslative branch and Kennedy with the gay right issue reached for a low hanging fruit that does not exist by law

I respect your thread

Equal rights is pretty clear to me, so why is a state addressing it? Is there some doubt what equal means? lol! Must be, so the Supreme Court had to interprete it for the states. I guess you didn't follow the link I gave you? Oh well,........

 

[NYcarbineer]

lame?
Retard?
stating facts
Laws are being wrote from the bench
and how does a sitting president decide by him self that a law cannot go into effect?
BHO just did it with Obama-care

It is all about the will of the people and the US constitution
Nothing in that document states a woman has the reight to abort a fetus
Nothing in that document states that 2 men or 2 woman can get legally married
It is a state issue, now it has become a federal issue against the will of the people in California

Amazing?
what of when GWB was the Pres and he had congress he mandates you must own a 9 MM?
or buy a Ford?
What is the diff from that and obama-care?

Nothing in the Constitution says a woman has the right to have her appendix removed either,

but I'll bet you can't make a case that it's a state's prerogative to ban appendectomies.

If the appendix were a separate human organism developing, you may have a point

Nothing in the Constitution explicitly or implicitly conveys rights of personhood on the fetus, so in the eyes of the Constitution, as written, a fetus is not distinguishable from an appendix.

May I remind you this was a constitutional conversation.

 

[JRK]

Maybe you should spend some time reading Supreme Court decisions to better understand where the power of Consititutional law for those decisions was derived from. Gay rights concern discrimination and equal rights. A state cannot make a law that is not derived from US Constitutional law, and a claim to an unborn child is in place in the case of murder by a third party. You might try reading Roe vs and other decisions on the subject. Home - Supreme Court of the United States

There you have it
It is how the law is seen
you make vaild points, but again like I stated before, equal rights never talked to gays. The correct path is to have the will of the people speak to that
they did
If the state votes to allow, so be it

What amazes me is the Dems had close to a super majority from 09-10
why was this issue not mandated by legeslation then?
why is it abortion has no legeslative history?
WHat fear is there to put those issues before the people?

There independant of any laws passed by the legeslative branch and Kennedy with the gay right issue reached for a low hanging fruit that does not exist by law

I respect your thread

Equal rights is pretty clear to me, so why is a state addressing it? Is there some doubt what equal means? lol! Must be, so the Supreme Court had to interprete it for the states. I guess you didn't follow the link I gave you? Oh well,........

Again
It depends on you view, not the law
when the civil rights act was inacted he had nothng to do with marriage
if so then do you think one man should be able to marry 10 women?
what is the difference?

 

[Contumacious]

As well as taking away the will of the people

The only way to impose a STATE SUPREMACIST AGENDA .

.

 

[jasonnfree]

no, you havent educated anyone.
You fucking moron, you can't vote rights away from people here in America. When you do that, its going to be challenged in court for being unconstitutional.

If you get 2/3 of each house and 3/4's of the states to agree you CAN vote away what is considered currently a right. Read the document fucktard.

It is 100% of what this thread is about
the will of the people
If the will of the people state they do not want two men getting married, how in gods name can SCOTUS state they can?

Equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a contractual thing and can't be denied because of gender the way I read it. This should make polygamy legal also, but it doesn't.

 

[jasonnfree]

There you have it
It is how the law is seen
you make vaild points, but again like I stated before, equal rights never talked to gays. The correct path is to have the will of the people speak to that
they did
If the state votes to allow, so be it

What amazes me is the Dems had close to a super majority from 09-10
why was this issue not mandated by legeslation then?
why is it abortion has no legeslative history?
WHat fear is there to put those issues before the people?

There independant of any laws passed by the legeslative branch and Kennedy with the gay right issue reached for a low hanging fruit that does not exist by law

I respect your thread

Equal rights is pretty clear to me, so why is a state addressing it? Is there some doubt what equal means? lol! Must be, so the Supreme Court had to interprete it for the states. I guess you didn't follow the link I gave you? Oh well,........

Again
It depends on you view, not the law
when the civil rights act was inacted he had nothng to do with marriage
if so then do you think one man should be able to marry 10 women?
what is the difference?

The supreme court sometimes opens up cans of worms. Under citizens united, a person/corporation can break off into hundreds of persons (holding companies) and claim residences in different countries for tax purposes. Is this "person" a male or female? It's a felony for a man to not register for the draft at age eighteen. Why not a woman if we're all equal under the law? Why not general electric or exxon who/which? is considered a person by the supremes? Not trying to be ridiculous even though I am for the moment, just bringing up inconsistencies with court rulings.

 

[JRK]

Equal rights is pretty clear to me, so why is a state addressing it? Is there some doubt what equal means? lol! Must be, so the Supreme Court had to interprete it for the states. I guess you didn't follow the link I gave you? Oh well,........

Again
It depends on you view, not the law
when the civil rights act was inacted he had nothng to do with marriage
if so then do you think one man should be able to marry 10 women?
what is the difference?

The supreme court sometimes opens up cans of worms. Under citizens united, a person/corporation can break off into hundreds of persons (holding companies) and claim residences in different countries for tax purposes. Is this "person" a male or female? It's a felony for a man to not register for the draft at age eighteen. Why not a woman if we're all equal Why not general electric or exxon who/which? is considered a person by the supremes? Not trying to be ridiculous even though I am for the moment, just bringing up inconsistencies with court rulings.

from A to Z
what about the equal rights of a black male when his white girl friend wants an abortion?

 

[Seawytch]

Again
It depends on you view, not the law
when the civil rights act was inacted he had nothng to do with marriage
if so then do you think one man should be able to marry 10 women?
what is the difference?

The supreme court sometimes opens up cans of worms. Under citizens united, a person/corporation can break off into hundreds of persons (holding companies) and claim residences in different countries for tax purposes. Is this "person" a male or female? It's a felony for a man to not register for the draft at age eighteen. Why not a woman if we're all equal Why not general electric or exxon who/which? is considered a person by the supremes? Not trying to be ridiculous even though I am for the moment, just bringing up inconsistencies with court rulings.

from A to Z
what about the equal rights of a black male when his white girl friend wants an abortion?

What does race have to do with it?

When the man is the one putting his health, life and future healthcare coverage at risk is when he gets to decide.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Writing laws from the bench was never the intent
when you state the will of the people in California in a state matter is un constitutional, please show me the part in the constituion that states 2 men can be married and get ferderal benifits the same as 1 man, 1 woman, when the will of the people voted 100% against the same
it was a state issue and just like abortions, that law was wrote from the bench
educated yet?

no, you havent educated anyone.
You fucking moron, you can't vote rights away from people here in America. When you do that, its going to be challenged in court for being unconstitutional.

Moron?
being a far left liberal comes with being an ass hole also?
anyway I have my opinion based on accurate information and if you do not like it try and convincing people with facts, not name calling

Roe VS wade is the only way the killing of a fteus becomes legal

JRK simply cannot evade the fact that judicial review is fact, been a fact for more than two centuries, and will continue to be a fact, while his nonsense will always be nonsense.

 

[Contumacious]

no, you havent educated anyone.
You fucking moron, you can't vote rights away from people here in America. When you do that, its going to be challenged in court for being unconstitutional.

Moron?
being a far left liberal comes with being an ass hole also?
anyway I have my opinion based on accurate information and if you do not like it try and convincing people with facts, not name calling

Roe VS wade is the only way the killing of a fteus becomes legal

JRK simply cannot evade the fact that judicial review is fact, been a fact for more than two centuries, and will continue to be a fact, while his nonsense will always be nonsense.

Comrade Starkiev,

The Law of the Soviet Union was the law developed in the Soviet Union (USSR) following the October Revolution of 1917. Modified versions of the Soviet legal system were adopted by many Communist states following the Second World War including Mongolia, the People's Republic of China, the Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe, Cuba and Vietnam.

Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.[1] The system was designed to protect the state from an individual, rather than to protect an individual from the state. Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies.

Gee, no wonder you love. That's the same "judicial review" (wink, wink) they had in your old country.

.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Moron? being a far left liberal comes with being an ass hole also? anyway I have my opinion based on accurate information and if you do not like it try and convincing people with facts, not name calling Roe VS wade is the only way the killing of a fteus becomes legal

JRK simply cannot evade the fact that judicial review is fact, been a fact for more than two centuries, and will continue to be a fact, while his nonsense will always be nonsense.

Modified versions of the Soviet legal system were adopted by many Communist states following the Second World War including Mongolia, the People's Republic of China, the Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe, Cuba and Vietnam. Gee, no wonder you love. That's the same "judicial review" (wink, wink) they had in your old country.

We can only despise the limited mind that cannot comprehend the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Step off, please.

 

[JRK]

The supreme court sometimes opens up cans of worms. Under citizens united, a person/corporation can break off into hundreds of persons (holding companies) and claim residences in different countries for tax purposes. Is this "person" a male or female? It's a felony for a man to not register for the draft at age eighteen. Why not a woman if we're all equal Why not general electric or exxon who/which? is considered a person by the supremes? Not trying to be ridiculous even though I am for the moment, just bringing up inconsistencies with court rulings.

from A to Z
what about the equal rights of a black male when his white girl friend wants an abortion?

What does race have to do with it?

When the man is the one putting his health, life and future healthcare coverage at risk is when he gets to decide.

14th amendment
It has everything to do with it
Abortion is a law that the judical branch CREATED
civil rights was a bi partisan, GOP party passed will of the people
It is 100% what my thread is about
the will of the people being over ruled by Judicial activisim

 

[editec]

As well as taking away the will of the people

That must be why the SCOTUS decided that money = free speech, right?

Because the SCOTUS is so liberal...and liberals so love the wealthy more than the working class.

Right, JRK?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRKs American is passing him by, and he can't stand it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again
It depends on you view, not the law
when the civil rights act was inacted he had nothng to do with marriage
if so then do you think one man should be able to marry 10 women?
what is the difference?

The supreme court sometimes opens up cans of worms. Under citizens united, a person/corporation can break off into hundreds of persons (holding companies) and claim residences in different countries for tax purposes. Is this "person" a male or female? It's a felony for a man to not register for the draft at age eighteen. Why not a woman if we're all equal Why not general electric or exxon who/which? is considered a person by the supremes? Not trying to be ridiculous even though I am for the moment, just bringing up inconsistencies with court rulings.

from A to Z
what about the equal rights of a black male when his white girl friend wants an abortion?

He's not pregnant, she is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is it you never see conservatives complaining about the undue power of the courts when the courts make rulings they like?

You did not, for example, see conservatives complaining when lower courts ruled the individual mandate in so-called Obamacare unconstitutional. No charges of 'judicial activism' then. No complaints about 'unelected' judges then.

The attacks on the judiciary only began when the SCOTUS found it constitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

from A to Z
what about the equal rights of a black male when his white girl friend wants an abortion?

What does race have to do with it?

When the man is the one putting his health, life and future healthcare coverage at risk is when he gets to decide.

14th amendment
It has everything to do with it
Abortion is a law that the judical branch CREATED
civil rights was a bi partisan, GOP party passed will of the people
It is 100% what my thread is about
the will of the people being over ruled by Judicial activisim

Not all civil rights received "bipartisan" support. Again the Loving v Virginia decision went against "the will of the people". 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving. Do you consider that "judicial activism"? Should we have waited until a majority of people approved of interracial marriages? Do you know when that was?

 

[JRK]

What does race have to do with it?

When the man is the one putting his health, life and future healthcare coverage at risk is when he gets to decide.

14th amendment
It has everything to do with it
Abortion is a law that the judical branch CREATED
civil rights was a bi partisan, GOP party passed will of the people
It is 100% what my thread is about
the will of the people being over ruled by Judicial activisim

Not all civil rights received "bipartisan" support. Again the Loving v Virginia decision went against "the will of the people". 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving. Do you consider that "judicial activism"? Should we have waited until a majority of people approved of interracial marriages? Do you know when that was?

As I have stated
The 14th Amendment clearly states that race should not be considered in matters such as those
Now there is an entirly different argument about states rights Vs federal mandates
I know nothing of the history of the event you speak of
but I am sure that vote came before the civil rights act of 1964