Page 23 of 46 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 456

Thread: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

  1. #221
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I'm suggesting, actually more like claiming, that entertainment & pop culture can influence and sway popular opinion on subjects like SSM, and subsequently polls on the subject change.
    When polls on a subject change, politicians will change with it if they think they have to in order to survive.
    When politicians change, who they gather around them changes and that includes judicial appointees.
    And that's what ultimately matters.
    So, yes, it may end up that the Constitution was not given more than lip service in order to decide SSM.
    Years ago we were told over and over that the Constitution was a Living Document.
    That was meant to convince you that it could mean whatever you want it to mean.
    That's still going on.


    As to your first point, since the Constitution doesn't provide a Federal definition of marriage, would the 10th Amendment apply?
    While influence can happen it obviously also doesn't matter. How did influence work in Loving Vs Virginia? It certainly had nothing to do with movies and public opinion and pop culture. Many black of the time didn't even support interracial marriage that decision was based on rights.

    As for the 10th its limited by the constitution and history proves, an example is the aforementioned loving vs Virginia. The 10th doesn't give states unlimited power.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  2. #222
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I'm suggesting, actually more like claiming, that entertainment & pop culture can influence and sway popular opinion on subjects like SSM, and subsequently polls on the subject change.
    When polls on a subject change, politicians will change with it if they think they have to in order to survive.
    When politicians change, who they gather around them changes and that includes judicial appointees.
    And that's what ultimately matters.
    So, yes, it may end up that the Constitution was not given more than lip service in order to decide SSM.
    Years ago we were told over and over that the Constitution was a Living Document.
    That was meant to convince you that it could mean whatever you want it to mean.
    That's still going on.


    As to your first point, since the Constitution doesn't provide a Federal definition of marriage, would the 10th Amendment apply?
    You might want to go look at when the current justices where appointed. Hint: there was little to no positive portrayals in popular media when most where appointed. And not a single one of the presidents who has appointed a current justice ran significantly on SSM. It was also highly unlikely to be a factor in any of their appointments, and certainly not on those who would be considered "swing" votes. So your popular media thing is just silly.

    And I do not think any one is claiming the 10th does not apply. It does. So does the 14th. And since the 14th is part of the constitution, guess which takes precedence. Please learn the US Constitution, it is a very important document that I am rather fond of.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #223
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Pet peeve time: if you go from 2 % chance to 4 % chance, that is a 100 % increase...
    Still not huge when talking about what is being discussed. Relatively small chance whether at 2% or 4%, despite being a 100% increase. When speaking of closer relatives potential, it is a percent increase in the 1000s.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #224
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,263

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by LaylaWindu View Post
    While influence can happen it obviously also doesn't matter.
    How did influence work in Loving Vs Virginia? It certainly had nothing to do with movies and public opinion and pop culture. Many black of the time didn't even support interracial marriage that decision was based on rights.

    As for the 10th its limited by the constitution and history proves, an example is the aforementioned loving vs Virginia.
    The 10th doesn't give states unlimited power.
    Influence ultimately & absolutely matters.
    USSC decisions are rarely unanimous.
    Justices base their reasoning on something.
    And clearly something influences them differently from each other.
    And to think they don't bring the ideology with them that they developed over time is pretty preposterous.
    Face it, a Liberal POTUS will appoint Justices whose decisions & reasoning they like & trust and a Conservative POTUS will do the same.
    I thought by now everyone accepted that as a given.

    Now, which type Justice would be more faithful to the Constitution as written is a matter for another thread.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  5. #225
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Influence ultimately & absolutely matters.
    USSC decisions are rarely unanimous.
    Justices base their reasoning on something.
    And clearly something influences them differently from each other.
    And to think they don't bring the ideology with them that they developed over time is pretty preposterous.
    Face it, a Liberal POTUS will appoint Justices whose decisions & reasoning they like & trust and a Conservative POTUS will do the same.
    I thought by now everyone accepted that as a given.

    Now, which type Justice would be more faithful to the Constitution as written is a matter for another thread.
    You haven't shown any evidence of "ultimate and absolute"
    Who said POTUS wouldn't pick judges they like? You are really all over the map with random claims.

    I notice you didn't answer my question or acknowledge the fact the 10th is limited.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  6. #226
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,263

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You might want to go look at when the current justices where appointed. Hint: there was little to no positive portrayals in popular media when most where appointed. And not a single one of the presidents who has appointed a current justice ran significantly on SSM. It was also highly unlikely to be a factor in any of their appointments, and certainly not on those who would be considered "swing" votes. So your popular media thing is just silly.

    And I do not think any one is claiming the 10th does not apply. It does. So does the 14th. And since the 14th is part of the constitution, guess which takes precedence. Please learn the US Constitution, it is a very important document that I am rather fond of.
    The 10th and the 14th are both parts of the Constitution and traditionally what isn't delineated as a province of the Federal Government would be decided by the States.
    Now, if you show me where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to define marriage then there's no more discussion necessary.

    And for you to suggest that the current USSC Justices view of SSM today couldn't be pretty accurately determined by looking at the Court makeup makes me think you're not serious.
    They don't have to have made a ruling on it before to discern such a thing.
    They got where they are today because of their experience & rulings in lower Courts and because the POTUS were aware of both.
    It's silly to argue otherwise.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  7. #227
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,263

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by LaylaWindu View Post
    You haven't shown any evidence of "ultimate and absolute"
    Who said POTUS wouldn't pick judges they like?
    You are really all over the map with random claims.

    I notice you didn't answer my question or acknowledge the fact the 10th is limited.

    You seem to be suggesting they might.
    Are you?
    What criteria do you think a POTUS would use when they pick a nominee to the USSC?
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

  8. #228
    One with the Force
    LaylaWindu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,964

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You seem to be suggesting they might.
    Are you?
    What criteria do you think a POTUS would use when they pick a nominee to the USSC?
    Good lord, suggesting who might what?

    As for your question I don't know, it probably varies a little per POTUS. What does the question have to do with you not demonstrating anything you claimed, still ignoring my question bout loving and that the 10th is limited.

    Until you answer that there will be no further discussion.
    "We are never done with lessons, not while we live"

  9. #229
    Guru
    Hamster Buddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,675

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Actually no. Same as incest. It should be simple enough to produce a reason(s) to ban polygamy/incest that meets some legitimate state purpose. If not, then let those bans go by the wayside.

    Also the same sort of question as whether Islam or Buddhism or the worship of the FSM (assuming that's legitimate for this purpose) should enjoy the same religious protections as Christianity.
    Well regarding the religious stuff, there's constitutional protections for that already in place so that's not really at issue here. And incidentally I agree with you about the polygamy/incest and as I've tried to tell others, that's why the majority of conservatives oppose SSM at this time. Because quite frankly, there is no legitimate reason to stop any two consenting adults from entering into and receiving the same legal benefits as straight or, hopefully soon, SS marriages. That's all I've really been trying to say in this area.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    ...huh? Does anyone who supports same-sex marriage oppose traditional marriage by that logic?
    Of course not, Jasper was asking a rhetorical question, so I was giving a rhetorical, if not sassy response.

  10. #230
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,263

    Re: Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by LaylaWindu View Post
    Good lord, suggesting who might what?

    As for your question I don't know, it probably varies a little per POTUS. What does the question have to do with you not demonstrating anything you claimed, still ignoring my question bout loving and that the 10th is limited.

    Until you answer that there will be no further discussion
    I'm not sure having a discussion with someone who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that Justices bring their own Constitutional biases with them, a POTUS knows that, and that he/her makes his/her pick on that basis has much chance of a meeting of the minds anyway.

    As for your question about the Loving decision, some courts use it and some don't when deciding SSM.
    Beyond that I don't get your point.

    If you keep insisting that the Justices don't bring their own interpretation of the Constitution despite the obvious, then you're right, there's no point continuing this.
    If that's not what you're insisting then you need to explain what you ARE saying.
    IF SOMETHING EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING.

Page 23 of 46 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •