Page 112 of 193 FirstFirst ... 1262102110111112113114122162 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,120 of 1930

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

  1. #1111
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    25,306

    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.
    Do you have a problem with "anchor" babies being covered by the 14th amendment, since you bring up this amendment ?
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  2. #1112
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 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 Politicshead View Post
    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.
    If SSM supporters have taught me anything over the years it's that marriage is about the benefits. It's kind of shallow if you ask me.

  3. #1113
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 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 NIMBY View Post
    Do you have a problem with "anchor" babies being covered by the 14th amendment, since you bring up this amendment ?
    Not really, but if you are going to have an immigration policy that's a pretty brainless one to pick. Why the government thinks that policy is logical and not harmful to basic enforcement is beyond me.

  4. #1114
    Magic!

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    24,511

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    If SSM supporters have taught me anything over the years it's that marriage is about the benefits. It's kind of shallow if you ask me.
    Do you suppose those in opposite gender marriages would be happy to give up those benefits?

  5. #1115
    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 Henrin View Post
    The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.
    Duh but the 14th was so broad in anticipation of other lowbrow tactics the southern states might use in the future - oppressive measures that were an offshoot of slavery ending, like jim crow

    Or do you think the 14th being used in brown vs board was nothing more than a tyrannical power grab by the fed too? Believe it or not, gay rights is not the only thing that has prospered thanks to that amendment

  6. #1116
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    25,306

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Not really, but if you are going to have an immigration policy that's a pretty brainless one to pick.
    Why the government thinks that policy is logical and not harmful to basic enforcement is beyond me.
    Have you seen an immigration policy from the current House and Senate being debated on their floors?
    It's certainly easier to have an issue to campaign on and not offer fixes--just like not having REPLACE for ACA--another bullet the GOP dodged.
    Just like the gay marriage ruling today--now the GOP gets to just complain and not legislate .
    Chemists Have Solutions .

  7. #1117
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 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
    Duh but the 14th was so broad in anticipation of other lowbrow tactics the southern states might use in the future - oppressive measures that were an offshoot of slavery ending, like jim crow

    Or do you think the 14th being used in brown vs board was nothing more than a tyrannical power grab by the fed too? Believe it or not, gay rights is not the only thing that has prospered thanks to that amendment
    Yes, I know. The courts regularly invoke the fourteenth amendment to grant the federal government power. It's why that amendment needs repealed. Well, that and the anchor baby stupidity. Though the anchor baby issue alone just calls for a repeal and replace measure to put in place a more reasonable policy.

  8. #1118
    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
    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.



    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 .
    I see now, but disneydude is right. It would cause an uproar to drag a confirmation out in perpetuity, and not just supreme court judges but ALL confirmations for BOTH parties would be put at risk - federal judges, cabinet. Why would they risk losing long-term power over a temporary dick measuring contest?

    It would be like the current senate removing the entire white house budget cause they in public hate obama. Well, the dems will return the favor and there goes the budget for the next repub pres for everything from security, to air force one, to the drapes. The parties in reality are in cahoots in their ineptitude, because they both profit from it regardless. They both get a 50/50 shot of the dynasty of a few families continuing, they both serve the banks, pharma, and oil, not the american people.

  9. #1119
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 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 Cardinal View Post
    Do you suppose those in opposite gender marriages would be happy to give up those benefits?
    No, but I don't see why that is nessarcy now. You just stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone and when those people die or get divorced the government is done with marriage. Gays can't complain about unequal treatment nor can straight couples, so all should be good.

  10. #1120
    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 Henrin View Post
    If SSM supporters have taught me anything over the years it's that marriage is about the benefits. It's kind of shallow if you ask me.
    Yeah that's why one of the plaintiffs was fighting to place his partner's name as 'husband' on the death certificate and the michigan couple sued to protect their adopted kids by having them both listed as parents. That's why other cases involved hospital visitation rights.

    If the SSM opponents have taught me anything, it's that they hate love

Posting Permissions

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