The point TRP's making is the complete lack of substance behind Zephie's argument. He's just throwin out right-wing buzzwords, as if they justify his entire homophobic, bigoted argument.
News, Zephie: they don't.
Advertisement
by New Chalcedon » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:09 pm
by Tmutarakhan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:20 pm
New Chalcedon wrote:I can give you five reasons: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts.
New Chalcedon wrote:Roberts worked pro bono (for free) to attack a Colorado constitutional amendment which would have prohibited discrimination (Romer v. Evans).
New Chalcedon wrote:Kennedy, while he authored Lawrence v. Texas, he also voted to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organisation right to bar gay people from joining in 2000
by New Chalcedon » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:35 pm
Tmutarakhan wrote:New Chalcedon wrote:I can give you five reasons: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts.
I do not think it is fair to Kennedy or Roberts to lump them in with the other three.New Chalcedon wrote:Roberts worked pro bono (for free) to attack a Colorado constitutional amendment which would have prohibited discrimination (Romer v. Evans).
That was the pro-gay side he was working for. You seem to have gotten tangled up in the double negatives: the Colorado amendment would have prohibited anti-discrimination ordinances, and Roberts was against that (in favor of anti-discrimination ordinances). It's easy to get lost in counting whether the number of negatives is even or odd: "The Bakke Court declined to overturn an appeals court ruling vacating a district court finding that reverse discrimination is not unconstitutional."New Chalcedon wrote:Kennedy, while he authored Lawrence v. Texas, he also voted to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organisation right to bar gay people from joining in 2000
On grounds that they were a private organization, not a public facility: he approves of decisions that the Scouts cannot take public funds if they violate public policies against discrimination (unlike Scalia and Thomas, and probably Alito, who would let them pocket my tax dollar and lock me out).
by The Resurgent Dream » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:00 pm
by Soheran » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:12 pm
by Ermarian » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:01 am
Zephie wrote:I don't want a higher tax burden because gays can get married.
by Our Constitution » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:48 am
Declaration of Independence: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them
by Our Constitution » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:54 am
by The Resurgent Dream » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:21 am
Our Constitution wrote:Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?
A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.
Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.
by Tahar Joblis » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:42 am
Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
US Constitution wrote:Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
No, there needs to be a change. Before any of these "stays" or "injunctions" can be brought a majority of the judges need to agree. A single judge should not be able to rule over a vote.
Here, let me illustrate:
People vote to legalize alcohol.
8/9 judges are silent on the issue.
1 judge decides the vote violated the constitution.
The law is made void until the Judges hear an appeal.
No, it should take a majority of the Judges until any law can be put under an injunction. I could care less about the ISSUE being debated here regarding *fagscoughfags* but the very power of a SINGLE JUDGE to overturn a Vote of a Majority of the People is wrong in the utmost.
Its Tyranny and for proof, allow me to show what our Founding Fathers thought of such abuses of power:Declaration of Independence: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them
5/9 Judges on the Bench to make an Injunction or Stay on a Law voted in by the Public. Giving a single judge this type of power is not what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.
by The Rich Port » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:44 am
New Chalcedon wrote:
The point TRP's making is the complete lack of substance behind Zephie's argument. He's just throwin out right-wing buzzwords, as if they justify his entire homophobic, bigoted argument.
News, Zephie: they don't.
by NERVUN » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:48 am
The Rich Port wrote:Did we scare all the Conservatives away besides Our Constitution? It's no fun trolling them without them actually BEING here.
by Vindicaria » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:50 am
by The Rich Port » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:53 am
NERVUN wrote:How about you don't?
Vindicaria wrote:This is a victory for civil rights. I don't understand why anyone should care about consensual bedrooms antics between adults. I'll never understand how a union of two men or women would dampen the values of my family. Besides for those pro-prop 8 who say well why can't just they just be together instead of getting married? Well what if one gets seriously injured in an accident or put into coma, the partner would legally have NO rights over the decision legally.
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:24 am
Our Constitution wrote:Seriously, Judges should not be given this power. A *single* Judge should not be given this power. It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
by The Rich Port » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:54 am
The Resurgent Dream wrote:Well, the Founding Fathers and 300 years of legislative and judicial history and precedent say you're dead wrong. Deal with it.
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:55 am
by DaWoad » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:57 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:58 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.
by Dyakovo » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:59 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.
by Tahar Joblis » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:14 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.
by The Rich Port » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:18 am
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Seems like liberals have stopped screaming "America's a democracy!" since the popular vote is not in their favour. But anyway, I don't really care whether gays marry or not. Just don't tell the children 'bout it.
by Ifreann » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:22 am
Our Constitution wrote:It is unconstitutional that a *single* judge can block these measures.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: AJTON, Catlovenia, Diarcesia, Dimetrodon Empire, Ifreann, ImSaLiA, Kaumudeen, Keltionialang, Kerwa, Luziyca, Maximum Imperium Rex, New Heldervinia, Shrillland, Soul Reapers, Stratonesia, The Jamesian Republic, The Two Jerseys
Advertisement