• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

WorldWatcher said:
That fact that States can't remove the privileges and immunities from a group of citizens nor deny them due process and equal protection under the laws? Ya, that is what is being talked about.



>>>>
Click to expand...

They never had the rights to take away!
 
once all this goes through I'm going to start a thread asking for predictions on the next "crisis" the gay community will create, and how people who don't agree with the next "crisis" will be called evil homophobes before you can bat an eye.

If I thought for a second "OK, once the gay people and their supporters get this, they will be happy and content" I would look forward to them just giving what they want already. However I'd bet everything I own it will only be the beginning, not the end, of their unending complaining and name calling of anyone not on their "side".

wait and see.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't feel like answering a question that's been asked and answered forty times in every ssm thread going back ten years. And besides, ssm will be the law of the land, I support it and clearly I'm going to get it. I can afford to be horribly lazy. You on the other hand are upset by ssm, so it's up to you to read the thread and figure it out yourself.
Click to expand...

just admit you have no answer!
 
Lursa said:
I know, I've written before that I dont want to be included when people look back in history and see the ignorance displayed by some people on this issue. It's just embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Hah! Even those against allowing homosexual marriage feel precisely that way. They don't wish to be part of the crowd that ignorantly allowed the US Constitution to be rewritten by nine robed justices against the will of the people. That's more than embarrassing.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
How long do you think the people who are a majority against ssm will put up with activist judges?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but they aren't activist judges and the only ones on the right that are upset enough to even consider "sucession" over SSM are a VERY TINY MINORITY throwing temper tantrums like a baby. Here's a hint, the MAJORITY of the country doesn't really care if it gets legalized. I think some on the right need a WAAAAAAAmbulance.
 
WorldWatcher said:
What??????????

The Justices let stand the rulings of the 10th, 7th, and 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which OVERTURN State bans.

That is not a "ruling" in favor of States being able to ban Civil Marriage based on gender.




The cases were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts. None of the cases rejected Monday was from the 9th Circuit.

None of the dozen or so Judges (District or Appeals) was queer.

The judges represented a mixture of "liberal" and "conservative" judges appointed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Judges such as Posner, long considered to be a conservative judge in the 7th Circuit court and appointed by Ronald Reagan.




>>>>
Click to expand...

You still have a majority of appointed judges not elected judges making law, that is not how the founders wanted it, they used an ballot referendum, got the signatures, and voted on it, and the 12 men overturned the will of the people, it should be considered criminal.
 
Deuce said:
Um, no, you are wrong. This dismissal means that every circuit court to date has overturned state bans. The states had their ban overturned, that's not leaving it to the states.
Click to expand...

It was judicial activism no matter how you slice it!
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry, but they aren't activist judges and the only ones on the right that are upset enough to even consider "sucession" over SSM are a VERY TINY MINORITY throwing temper tantrums like a baby. Here's a hint, the MAJORITY of the country doesn't really care if it gets legalized. I think some on the right need a WAAAAAAAmbulance.
Click to expand...

You are full of **** then why did so many states have to have their referendums overturned jackwagon, why did the judges even intercede it was judicial activism that overturned a matter that was voted on, one side won and liberal ass hats couldn't handle it.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
You are dismissed because you are intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey Annie Oakley. As I said, I'm already getting what I want. You're the one who's going to have to come to terms with the new ways.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
You are full of **** then why did so many states have to have their referendums overturned jackwagon, why did the judges even intercede it was judicial activism that overturned a matter that was voted on, one side won and liberal ass hats couldn't handle it.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what you said. You said the majority would want to secede over it. Sorry people don't care that much about SSM being legal to do that. And no they aren't activist judges. With each state that SSM becomes legal, I toast to the anti-SSM with a big "Suck it".
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
You still have a majority of appointed judges not elected judges making law, that is not how the founders wanted it, they used an ballot referendum, got the signatures, and voted on it, and the 12 men overturned the will of the people, it should be considered criminal.
Click to expand...

The States wrote the SSM bans. The Judges did not. The judges are ruling that the laws written by the states are unconstitutional. That is their job as described by the Constitution.

What laws have the Judges written?

No where in the Constitution does it say through vote or through referendum or through state Constitution can rights of the people be voted away...NO where.
 
JoeTrumps said:
once all this goes through I'm going to start a thread asking for predictions on the next "crisis" the gay community will create, and how people who don't agree with the next "crisis" will be called evil homophobes before you can bat an eye.

If I thought for a second "OK, once the gay people and their supporters get this, they will be happy and content" I would look forward to them just giving what they want already. However I'd bet everything I own it will only be the beginning, not the end, of their unending complaining and name calling of anyone not on their "side".

wait and see.
Click to expand...

Hey, great. How about a preview? What do you think 'they'll come up with?'
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
You are dismissed because you are intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

No he's not. You are just too lazy to read the thread. It's all been answered many times.

Find your own answers...they're all here.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
How long do you think the people who are a majority against ssm will put up with activist judges?
Click to expand...

There is no national majority against same sex couples getting married and everyday more and more people either come to support it or simply don't care enough about it.
 
It's good to keep in mind that in this country, it is the people who have the final say about what the Constitution means, and not the federal courts. We should never think we have no choice but to sit meekly and do as a few judges tell us.

If push came to shove, Congress could probably remove the lower federal courts' jurisdiction to hear any case involving a certain issue. And Congress almost certainly has power to dissolve the lower federal courts outright. Federal district courts didn't even exist until the 1870's, when Congress created them by law.

Congress once snatched a case right from under the Supreme Court's nose, after oral arguments had already been heard, by passing a law that removed the Court's jurisdiction. See Ex Parte McCardle. I suppose Congress could do that again, if Americans were outraged enough to demand it.

The House also once impeached a Supreme Court justice, although he survived his trial in the Senate and stayed on. I suppose the House could also do that again, even if it's unlikely. But even discussing the possibility forcefully in public would tend to remind the Court that the Judicial Branch is the weakest of the three.

Congress can also pass a law that undercuts or even goes against an unpopular Supreme Court decision, and dare the Court to overrule it. If the people and their representatives were adamant, it might choose not to pick up the glove.

A President can also decline to enforce a Supreme Court decision, or some part of it, that he believes is clearly unconstitutional, as President Lincoln did with Dred Scott v. Sandford.
 
Last edited:
penn1954 said:
Gutless Aholes !!!!:twocents:
Click to expand...

I thought y'all loved State rights. Now you want the federal government in there? Why? Cause it didn't turn out how you wanted it? Man's guess many cannot live by the principles and repercussions of freedom.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
Show me the right to marry for same sex couples, also show me the results of those elections where states voted to ban ssm and we will talk about 1 elected official subverting the will of the people
Click to expand...

Washington state voted to allow same sex couples to marry. Maine or Maryland voted down their ban and then voted to allow same sex marriage. Minnesota voted against the ban them their legislature voted for same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage is a right via the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. Not all rights are enumerated, since the Constitution is meant to limit the government not the people, including state governments.
 
matchlight said:
It's good to keep in mind that in this country, it is the people who have the final say about what the Constitution means, and not the federal courts. We should never think we have no choice but to sit meekly and do as a few judges tell us.

If push came to shove, Congress could probably remove the lower federal courts' jurisdiction to hear any case involving a certain issue. And Congress almost certainly has power to dissolve the lower federal courts outright. Federal district courts didn't even exist until the 1870's, when Congress created them by law.

Congress once snatched a case right from under the Supreme Court's nose, after oral arguments had already been heard, by passing a law that removed the Court's jurisdiction. See Ex Parte McCardle. I suppose Congress could do that again, if Americans were outraged enough to demand it.

The House also once impeached a Supreme Court justice, although he survived his trial in the Senate and stayed on. I suppose the House could also do that again, even if it's unlikely. But even discussing the possibility forcefully in public would tend to remind the Court that the Judicial Branch is the weakest of the three.

Congress can also pass a law that undercuts or even goes against an unpopular Supreme Court decision, and dare the Court to overrule it. If the people and their representatives were adamant, it might choose not to pick up the glove.

A President can also decline to enforce a Supreme Court decision, or some part of it, that he believes is clearly unconstitutional, as President Lincoln did with Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Click to expand...

Yes, those things can theoretically happen.

But they wont. A majority of Americans support same sex marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Washington state voted to allow same sex couples to marry. Maine or Maryland voted down their ban and then voted to allow same sex marriage. Minnesota voted against the ban them their legislature voted for same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage is a right via the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. Not all rights are enumerated, since the Constitution is meant to limit the government not the people, including state governments.
Click to expand...

I know this is specifically a debate forum, but I think everyone from here on out who demands to know where in the constitution it declares that marriage is a right should be told to get bent. But you know, in a nice, non giggable way.
 
upsideguy said:
Not exactly. The court refused to hear the case, leaving stand what the circuits have decided. The circuits, as you may recall, have consistently over-ruled the states to date, broaden SSM. Since the authority of the circuit is across state lines, the SCOTUS ruling has the effect of broadening the rulings of the circuits. In other words, since almost all circuit court verdicts have been to overturn statues on SSM, those rulings now will apply to states where the question has not yet come to court. As soon as someone in one of these states files, they will get an uncontested judgement in their favor, thus broadening SSM.

In an odd-way, this is a major victory for the SSM movement.
Click to expand...

Yup....

From what I understand is that the scotus' intent is to not rule on it until a lower court goes the other way causing a conflict to iron out in conflicting lower court rulings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom