Page 111 of 193 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113121161 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,110 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1101
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The 'power of the states' to decide whether they got to discriminate based on race, sexuality, etc has been in jeopardy for quite some time.



    It's an example of the decline of the state right to discriminate.
    They seem to forget the 14th was added specifically to check the power of the states, after that minor inconvenience known as the civil war

  2. #1102
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    If Justice Ginsburg doesn't make it to the next President, as she meets her Creator, with this term Creator used in our Constitution;
    The USSC will only have eight Justices at the start of the next Presidency, as this Senate will never approve another Obama appointee.

    And until then and after, the conundrum of a 4-4 USSC on rulings like today will be in effect.

    With the defection of Roberts and Kennedy to what I believe is their Libertarian view of the Constitution,
    we may not see a ninth Justice for many years to come.

    Unless the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party and the 51-vote nuclear option is instituted .
    i would expect before the SCOTUS gave up too much authority along the lines of NO confirmations at all, they would declare the 60 vote rule unconstitutional

    the senate won't refuse to confirm *someone* because each party has a (roughly) 50/50 shot at president and they don't want the favor returned once they have the white house. In the end, the other two branches lose even more power

  3. #1103
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    right like SSM is going to have any meaningful impact on birth rate...

    maybe you should blame the 70% who are hetero christians and have stopped breeding, or god forbid, acknowledge that we're overpopulated and there is no way 300 million shar'ia muslims will be added to the voter rolls.
    How are we overpopulated?

  4. #1104
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    One attempt at conciliation from the majority ruling i have to take issue with:
    "Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. "

    Really, i'm pretty sure SCOTUS released the decision today to avoid throngs of loonies from kansas having time to swarm into D.C., so he must not think too highly of them. In fact, like them i suspect, i wasn't paying attention at all, figuring the decision comes monday-tuesday

    Also this is a perfect representation of the hysteria from "reasonable and sincere people" and the kind of voter ted cruz covets and scalia's #1 fan:







    Comparisons to 9/11, jihad, and nazis - I bet the resident bigots are *real* proud to share their 'cause' with this guy

  5. #1105
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    11-09-16 @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,227

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Democrats have every right to be like:

    Dems had *what* to do with this exactly? This is several federal court decisions followed by a majority ruling penned by a reagan appointee. They have no right to be proud, when they stood aside meekly while bush and romney did everything possible to ban gay rights. And hillary being in your pic is damn funny, when her husband voted in DADT and DOMA

    Aside from a handful of state legislatures, the dems have been impotent while true activists led the public and court battle

  6. #1106
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    11-05-16 @ 07:27 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    150

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.
    You don't like this ruling from SCOTUS because it goes against your beliefs? Tough.
    We don't like the ruling from DC v Heller because it goes against our beliefs, but conservatives are happy to support the SCOTUS when it makes decisions they agree with.

    At least gay marriage won't enable countless deaths.

  7. #1107
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    They seem to forget the 14th was added specifically to check the power of the states, after that minor inconvenience known as the civil war
    The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

  8. #1108
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    11-05-16 @ 07:27 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    150

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.

    You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.

    I never had a problem with gays before today, but this is too much. I will not be your friend.
    I feel sorry for you man. I don't know why you have so much hate in you, but I hope you someday find peace and happiness.

    You share lot's of things with gay people (or people, as I prefer to call them): The nation, the flag, restaurants, free speech, the constitution. Marriage will just be another one.
    Do you hate gays more than you love your girlfriend? If the answer is no, then marry her.

  9. #1109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    25,293

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    i would expect before the SCOTUS gave up too much authority along the lines of
    NO confirmations at all, they would declare the 60 vote rule unconstitutional
    This still doesn't address the current situation where the GOP Senate can vote down any USSC Obama nominee by a simple majority vote.
    This would still leave us Constitutionally with eight Justices, which has occurred in the past.
    Tie votes would revert back to previous court rulings, effectively ending debate.

    the senate won't refuse to confirm *someone* because each party has a (roughly) 50/50 shot at president and
    they don't want the favor returned once they have the white house.
    In the end, the other two branches lose even more power
    Either party could filibuster a USSC nominee in the next Presidency--depending on who owns the Senate and Presidency.
    We have not seen the "Nuclear Option" used yet for USSC appointees--that looks like the only way we'll get a ninth Justice in the future.

    68 of the first 96 nominees of our NATION were approved by a voice vote.
    Beginning with Thurgood Marshall in 1967, the last 21 approved Justices were by roll-call vote.
    Thomas got the least number of votes in Modern times--52; followed by Alito with 58.
    As you can see, a filibuster by DEMs could have stopped them.

    It will take years for the legalities of the filibuster to reach the USSC.
    IMHO, Roberts/Kennedy rulings will lean right on changing the way Congress works, leaving the filibuster alone.

    We may well have a reached a point in our miserable partisan history in the Senate both ways
    that both the Senate and President must be of the same party just to get a new Justice .
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  10. #1110
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,299

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.
    It may have also had something to do with what the country was going to do with all those freed slaves and how they would be treated in the states that had once enslaved them.

Posting Permissions

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