Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[Synthaholic]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Besides your math being egregiously wrong (9-3=6, not 5), did you say that we should have ripped up the Constitution after the 5-4 Citizens United ruling?

 

[martybegan]

The SAFE act as well as NYC'd draconian handgun laws violate an EXPLICIT RIGHT in the constitution.

And as for the other states suing Colorado, its a bullshit lawsuit, regardless of which party supports it. I have been in favor of Pot being treated like alcohol (States decide legality) for a long time.

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

The right I am talking about is explicitly written in the document. How is that a double standard?

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution, and the ones you support are basically "because I want to" based lawsuits.
.

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

Again, no double standard because the ones I support ARE EXPLICIT, not made up "because I say so" bullshit.

If you can't get the difference, its because you don't want to.

 

[RKMBrown]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

I bet it will be unanimously for.

Nope...Scalia will definitely vote NO and Thomas will vote whatever way Scalia does.

Wanna bet?

Sounds like fun....Avatar bet?

just a friendly bet....

 

[rightwinger]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

It was the Constitution that established the nine non-elected lawyers

 

[martybegan]

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.

Public accommodation laws... liberty is not the liberty to do others harm. The question for the baking incident is who is being harmed the baker in being asked to bake a cake or the baker's customer in being asked to move along because this baker doesn't bake cakes for gay people, black people, jewish people or any other type of person they are bigoted against.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

Fucking pussy.

 

[Synthaholic]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

I bet it will be unanimously for.

Nope...Scalia will definitely vote NO and Thomas will vote whatever way Scalia does.

Wanna bet?

I have always believed that Thomas enjoys his status among the extreme Rightwing much more than he takes the SCOTUS seriously.

He would never jeopardize that status.

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

It was the Constitution that established the nine non-elected lawyers

and i was progressives who ruined the system by suing over bullshit, and getting fellow travelers appointed to the bench.

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Besides your math being egregiously wrong (9-3=6, not 5), did you say that we should have ripped up the Constitution after the 5-4 Citizens United ruling?

5 of 9 is all that is required to get ANY decision, not just this one. try to keep up.

 

[martybegan]

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

 

[Synthaholic]

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions

Let's change that to Black people:

If you can justify forcing someone to serve cake to someone they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions...

Do you still agree?

 

[martybegan]

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions

Let's change that to Black people:

If you can justify forcing someone to serve cake to someone they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions...

Do you still agree?

A person walking up to a counter for a neutral product is different than asking them to provide a specific customized service for a ceremony they find morally wrong.

Do black people really want to force racists to attend thier weddings as vendors? Black people are actually smart enough to realize this is foolish. something gays have yet to figure out.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

That's the next step when you force people to serve cake to people they don't want to.

 

[bodecea]

Someone who disagrees with the legal right of certain people to get married........probably shouldn't be in the wedding business.

 

[Synthaholic]

Who took Obamacare to the Supreme Court?

Who took Social Security and Medicare to the Supreme Court?

Where in any of those programs does it say they are "rights"

They are entitlements, not rights. The argument is different.

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

The laws in those cases created entitlements. try to keep up.

The SCOTUS rules on laws, not rights and entitlements.

I've kept up just fine, thank you.

How were those entitlements created?

You really are not that bright.

We are talking about laws, and the constitutionality thereof.

The SCOTUS does not rule on entitlements or rights, they rule on laws being constitutional or not.

'Entitlements' is a Right-Wing buzzword.

 

[martybegan]

Someone who disagrees with the legal right of certain people to get married........probably shouldn't be in the wedding business.

People who are getting married shouldn't get off on fucking over people who disagree with them.

For all your protests to the contrary, you idiots WILL go after Churches next, its just your fucking nature, not being gay, but being progressive assholes.

 

[martybegan]

Where in any of those programs does it say they are "rights"

They are entitlements, not rights. The argument is different.

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

The laws in those cases created entitlements. try to keep up.

The SCOTUS rules on laws, not rights and entitlements.

I've kept up just fine, thank you.

How were those entitlements created?

You really are not that bright.

We are talking about laws, and the constitutionality thereof.

The SCOTUS does not rule on entitlements or rights, they rule on laws being constitutional or not.

'Entitlements' is a Right-Wing buzzword.

Created by laws. Enjoy your lesson.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.

Forcing gay marriage on States that don't want it will be just the start. Soon other groups will claim "rights" that don't exist in the document, and who among you will have the standing to deny them? Next we can get rid of rights we don't like using the same logic, just like you assholes are doing with then 2nd amendment.

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

That's Public Accomodation Law territory. Don't like them, get your Representative to get rid of them.....INCLUDING the part that protects members of religions when they request services from businesses.

Most religious people will be smart enough not to patronize people who don't want them around. Only homosexuals evidently feel the need to force their morality on people.

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

 

[martybegan]

Forcing gay marriage on States that don't want it will be just the start. Soon other groups will claim "rights" that don't exist in the document, and who among you will have the standing to deny them? Next we can get rid of rights we don't like using the same logic, just like you assholes are doing with then 2nd amendment.

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

That's Public Accomodation Law territory. Don't like them, get your Representative to get rid of them.....INCLUDING the part that protects members of religions when they request services from businesses.

Most religious people will be smart enough not to patronize people who don't want them around. Only homosexuals evidently feel the need to force their morality on people.

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

 

[Synthaholic]

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

 

[Synthaholic]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

It was the Constitution that established the nine non-elected lawyers

That's unconstitutional!!!!!111!!!!