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

[Seawytch]

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

No it did not. Loving was decided in 1967 when 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage. Read up because it relates.

You simply cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. DOMA did (and still does) that. Prop 8 did that.

 

[JRK]

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

No it did not. Loving was decided in 1967 when 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage. Read up because it relates.

You simply cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. DOMA did (and still does) that. Prop 8 did that.

No they did not
but to agree to dis agree

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the country was opposed to integrated marriage in 1967.

You have to start embracing the truth, JRK.

 

[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?

BTW I am sure Virginia was mostly Dem controlled
my comment was on the federal level

 

[Seawytch]

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?

BTW I am sure Virginia was mostly Dem controlled
my comment was on the federal level

It was on the Federal level! The SCOTUS struck down anti miscegenation laws. Jeez...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

Until birth the rights of the woman are paramount.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Incorrect.

Abortion is not a ‘law,’ it’s a medical procedure.

For reasons subjective and irrational, some states sought to ban the procedure in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses with regard to the right to privacy. Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down such laws. Nothing was ‘created.’

There is also no such thing as ‘judicial activism,’ as when the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, through referenda or their elected representatives, the courts have no other choice but to invalidate those laws, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The 14th Amendment ‘states’ many things.

Among those many things, the 14th Amendment compels the states to afford each resident of a state the right to due process and equal protection of the law, both with regard to procedural and substantive due process.

By enacting laws denying a woman her right to privacy, absent a rational basis and a legitimate legislative end supported by objective, documented evidence, the state has acted in a manner prohibited by the 14th Amendment, in addition to the 5th Amendment’s right to individual liberty and guarantee of due process of the law.

As already correctly noted, of course, the political irony of this is we have ‘conservatives’ advocating for affording government more power and authority, expanding the size and influence of the government, at the expense of citizens’ civil liberties.

 

[Yurt]

odd

republicans use the courts as well

Gay marriage foes seek to halt California same-sex weddings

Gay marriage foes seek to halt California same-sex weddings

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

BTW I am sure Virginia was mostly Dem controlled
my comment was on the federal level

It was controlled by conservatives, then as now.

 

[Seawytch]

odd

republicans use the courts as well

Gay marriage foes seek to halt California same-sex weddings

Gay marriage foes seek to halt California same-sex weddings

They lost though.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Yes, it’s the ‘horrible’ liberal ‘agenda,’ seeking to ensure all persons are afforded their civil liberties in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Shocking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

odd

republicans use the courts as well

Gay marriage foes seek to halt California same-sex weddings

Gay marriage foes seek to halt California same-sex weddings

That doesn’t make any sense, there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there’s only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts.

What they seek is to deny same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris opined last month that clerks should issue wedding licenses.

Harris on Friday filed a brief with the state Supreme Court asking it to deny the request from the opponents of gay marriage.

"Today's filing by the proponents of Proposition 8 is yet another attempt to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights. It is baseless and we will continue to fight against it," Harris said in a statement.

Theodore Olson, who represented the gay couples that challenged Prop. 8 in court, called the latest court filing "a desperate and frivolous act."

Indeed.

And the difference between liberals and conservatives with regard to use of the courts is that the former works to protect citizens’ civil liberties, while the latter works to take them away.

 

[Yurt]

while logically gay marriage doesn't exist, it has, nonetheless, become an idiom in this country. everyone understands what it means.

but i find it ironic that pubs whine about libs using the courts when pubs use the courts to fight for their agenda as well

 

[Yurt]

oh shat, the stark pos repped and thanked me

i will end myself to avoid further embarrassment

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt, it is maturity for you to realize that pubs are statists when it comes to their pet projects as well in filing with courts. It's OK, it means you are growing up.

 

[Seawytch]

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

No it did not. Loving was decided in 1967 when 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage. Read up because it relates.

You simply cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. DOMA did (and still does) that. Prop 8 did that.

No they did not
but to agree to dis agree

Those were the courts findings. You can "disagree" all you want to, but both laws were found to have violated the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it did not. Loving was decided in 1967 when 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage. Read up because it relates.

You simply cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. DOMA did (and still does) that. Prop 8 did that.

No they did not
but to agree to dis agree

Those were the courts findings. You can "disagree" all you want to, but both laws were found to have violated the Constitution.

Absolutely.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, it is maturity for you to realize that pubs are statists when it comes to their pet projects as well in filing with courts. It's OK, it means you are growing up.

i don't need a flaming liberal to tell me about growing up

especially a liberal who NEVER backs up his claims

see, i've been balanced about both parties for a couple of years now, you, however, are still in the democrats camp and are not balanced, thus, using your logic, you are not grown up

deal with it

 

[rightwinger]

The Judicial Branch is needed to keep the states under control when they trample on individual rights