• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

Gringo allstar said:
So I guess you support tyranny of the minority?
Click to expand...

Lmao, you're desperate for an argument. Legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the majority other than hurt feelings and having to adhere to non-discrimination laws. It restricts no rights whatsoever. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get married to someone of the same gender. :shrug:
 
Gringo allstar said:
Were not these same men in black robes OK with slavery at one point in time??? You don't need to answer that.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Dred Scott is regarded as a terrible decision because it was made in order to uphold the will of the (Southern) people. Yes? :lol: I don't think you actually thought that argument through too well.
 
Hicup said:
I'm just wondering when AGENTJ will come in here and concede that this "law" is now fact.. Of course it's an opinion like all the other laws in the land, but it will give me a smile in any event watching how he tries to reacquaint himself with a shred of consistency. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

It is factual that this three-judge appeals court panel ruled to uphold a ban. I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.
 
Gringo allstar said:
Were not these same men in black robes OK with slavery at one point in time??? You don't need to answer that.
Click to expand...

How long do you think supreme court justices live!?
 
Hatuey said:
Lmao, you're desperate for an argument. Legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the majority other than hurt feelings and having to adhere to non-discrimination laws. It restricts no rights whatsoever. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get married to someone of the same gender. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Correction.. You're desperate for an argument because it didn't go your way, get over it.
 
Gringo allstar said:
Correction.. You're desperate for an argument because it didn't go your way, get over it.
Click to expand...

Ummm, I'm not the one arguing that courts are supposed to uphold the will of the people. That's absolute f'n nonsense and plain ignorance. But hey, we can have a debate on it. ;) You down?
 
Hicup said:
This judge pretty much just dared the USSC to legislate from the bench.. Double Dog dared them.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Deciding constitutional questions is not "legislating from the bench", it is in fact the very role of the judicial system in our system of checks and balances.
 
Redress said:
Deciding constitutional questions is not "legislating from the bench", it is in fact the very role of the judicial system in our system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Stop it, we're poking too many holes in the "will of the people" arguments. I mean, if the will of the people was to have slavery, should courts uphold it? If the people voted to restrict the rights of X group, should that be upheld? The best part is that making gay marriage legal, somehow oppresses the majority.
 
Hatuey said:
Stop it, we're poking too many holes in the "will of the people" arguments. I mean, if the will of the people was to have slavery, should courts uphold it? If the people voted to restrict the rights of X group, should that be upheld? The best part is that making gay marriage legal, somehow oppresses the majority.
Click to expand...

The popularity of an idea is directly proportional to its worth! For instance, Justin Bieber sells a lot of albums, therefore he is a highly talented artist.
 
Hatuey said:
Stop it, we're poking too many holes in the "will of the people" arguments. I mean, if the will of the people was to have slavery, should courts uphold it? If the people voted to restrict the rights of X group, should that be upheld? The best part is that making gay marriage legal, somehow oppresses the majority.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't quite like that though. The ultimate "will of the people" is the US constitution, and judges cannot overturn that. The people can and have amended that constitution, and judges are then bound by their will. SO theoretically, if the people are able to amend the constitution making slavery legal, judges would have to uphold that. The problem is not "will of the people", it is that people do not understand what that means.

AS the constitution represents the ultimate will of the people, it is the job of judges to determine what is and is not constitutional. Saying "the people should decide" is not how the system is supposed to work. A law is, by it's nature, either constitutional or unconstitutional. And no state gets to override that ultimate arbiter of the will of the people.
 
Hatuey said:
You do realize that Dred Scott is regarded as a terrible decision because it was made in order to uphold the will of the (Southern) people. Yes? :lol: I don't think you actually thought that argument through too well.[/QUO

No it was a decision made by men in black robes who were racist bigots. It had nothing to do with the will of the "southern people" it had everything to do with the will of racist judges. This really isn't that hard if you would take the time to think it through. Who's hard up for an argument?? Nice try but you failed miserably.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Well, it isn't quite like that though. The ultimate "will of the people" is the US constitution, and judges cannot overturn that. The people can and have amended that constitution, and judges are then bound by their will. SO theoretically, if the people are able to amend the constitution making slavery legal, judges would have to uphold that. The problem is not "will of the people", it is that people do not understand what that means.

AS the constitution represents the ultimate will of the people, it is the job of judges to determine what is and is not constitutional. Saying "the people should decide" is not how the system is supposed to work. A law is, by it's nature, either constitutional or unconstitutional. And no state gets to override that ultimate arbiter of the will of the people.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir. Gringo Star has no idea what the will of the people actually means.
 
Gringo allstar said:
No it was a decision made by men in black robes who were racist bigots. It had nothing to do with the will of the "southern people" it had everything to do with the will of racist judges. This really isn't that hard if you would take the time to think it through. Who's hard up for an argument?? Nice try but you failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Why are you racist against robes?
 
Gringo allstar said:
No it was a decision made by men in black robes who were racist bigots. It had nothing to do with the will of the "southern people" it had everything to do with the will of racist judges. This really isn't that hard if you would take the time to think it through. Who's hard up for an argument?? Nice try but you failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Are you really under the impression that the people in the south were against segregation and those dastardly judges forced it on them?
 
Hatuey said:
Ummm, I'm not the one arguing that courts are supposed to uphold the will of the people. That's absolute f'n nonsense and plain ignorance. But hey, we can have a debate on it. ;) You down?
Click to expand...

No you're arguing that the courts should overturn the will of the people, as in the state constitution of MI. Which they did, now stop whining although you wear it well.
 
Deuce said:
Are you really under the impression that the people in the south were against segregation and those dastardly judges forced it on them?
Click to expand...

That's not what i said, reread the post so you can grasp the meaning of it.
 
TurtleDude said:
mainly the will of the voters should be respected. I have to see which panel was on it (three judges)

I suggest that a request for a ruling en banc will happen first but maybe not

that would mean all of the judges on the circuit rehear the case. You can get a panel that decides in a way that most of the judges would disagree


ah it was Judge Sutton (very "conservative but he upheld Obamacare and he is one of the two real intellectual heavyweights on the Circuit), Judge Cook (another conservative also from Ohio) in the majority with Clinton Appointee Marta Craig Daughtery dissenting

I have argued before Cook and MCD and both are pretty good. Sutton is a superstar and has been mentioned as a USSC justice but he has lately been surpassed by another Bush appointee who is less flamboyant but equally bright

2-1 might mean en banc
Click to expand...

They aren't very bright at all if this is how they ruled

Then again, the best i could say for them is compartmentalized insanity
 
Redress said:
Deciding constitutional questions is not "legislating from the bench", it is in fact the very role of the judicial system in our system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...

That's the role the Supreme Court arrogated to itself in Marbury v. Madison two centuries ago. But the Court is not necessarily the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, even though it has also claimed that authority.

The Supreme Court can and sometimes does make law, while claiming just to be deciding a constitutional question. I think a survey of the leading constitutional law professors and lawyers in the U.S. would show most of them believe that's exactly what the Court did in Roe v. Wade, for example--even the ones who like the outcome. The Supreme Court itself has backed well away from Roe. For example, the Roe Court declared (without even trying to justify it) that abortion is a fundamental right; but the Court is no longer willing to claim that, and hasn't been for more than twenty years.

This Sixth Circuit decision must make Anthony Kennedy think his big chance is coming to write the new Roe, only this time concocting a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy has for years been riding point for the proponents of the homosexual agenda on the Court. He authored all three of the Court's pro-homosexual decisions--Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and Windsor v. United States last year. Kennedy grew up in Sacramento. As a high school student there he got to meet Earl Warren, later to become the Chief Justice, when he was Governor of California. Sometimes Kennedy seems to think he's Warren's reincarnation, riding around like a white knight righting everything he views as a social wrong.
 
Hatuey said:
Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.
Click to expand...

What these fed judges fail to realize is if the mob mentality rules all, there is no point to having fed judges.
 
When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way
Click to expand...

This was in the ruling. How on earth does a judge at this level even mention something like this? This is constitutional reasoning now?
 
matchlight said:
That's the role the Supreme Court arrogated to itself in Marbury v. Madison two centuries ago. But the Court is not necessarily the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, even though it has also claimed that authority.

The Supreme Court can and sometimes does make law, while claiming just to be deciding a constitutional question. I think a survey of the leading constitutional law professors and lawyers in the U.S. would show most of them believe that's exactly what the Court did in Roe v. Wade, for example--even the ones who like the outcome. The Supreme Court itself has backed well away from Roe. For example, the Roe Court declared (without even trying to justify it) that abortion is a fundamental right; but the Court is no longer willing to claim that, and hasn't been for more than twenty years.

This Sixth Circuit decision must make Anthony Kennedy think his big chance is coming to write the new Roe, only this time concocting a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy has for years been riding point for the proponents of the homosexual agenda on the Court. He authored all three of the Court's pro-homosexual decisions--Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and Windsor v. United States last year. Kennedy grew up in Sacramento. As a high school student there he got to meet Earl Warren, later to become the Chief Justice, when he was Governor of California. Sometimes Kennedy seems to think he's Warren's reincarnation, riding around like a white knight righting everything he views as a social wrong.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of Roe v Wade is fatally flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom