• 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!

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The 14th amendment doesn't mention anything specific.

You keep dodging this question:
If the 14th amendment doesn't mention anything specifically, does that mean it doesn't apply to anything?

I don't care about the 14th amendment. The point is that the law isn't determined by the legislature, it's determined by the "interpretations" of activist judges. We as a nation are legislated to by judges.

That's what bothers me. Not some specific ruling or some specific pet issue.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which part of that do you object to?

The part where the people no longer determine their own destiny.

It's now determied for us by unelected, self-agrandizing robed blowhards in powdered wigs.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I don't care about the 14th amendment. The point is that the law isn't determined by the legislature, it's determined by the "interpretations" of activist judges. We as a nation are legislated to by judges.

That's what bothers me. Not some specific ruling or some specific pet issue.

Well, the courts care about the constitution and therefore care about the 14th amendment. As do I.

Your pet laws are being challenged under the 14th amendment. The legislature isn't granted power to decide the constitutionality of its own laws.

You have it backwards. The legislators have violated the constitution, and the courts are making remedy. They didn't write the laws. They're overturning laws that violate the constitution.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

In matters of state laws that violate the constitution, the federal courts have jurisdiction, period. That is entirely why the federal courts exist
That's much closer to a factual statement than your last post, although Constitutional issues are but one purview of the federal court system, and certainly not "entirely why they exist."
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

You can keep using your own definitions of words, but you're going to have communications problems.

How do you define public accommodation laws? Because yours seems to differ from reality.

This has been explained over and over again, but Ill try it one more time: anybody can go into a bakery and buy any cake on display, and a craftsman does not have to accept a custom order from anybody. Not getting your way is not "discrimination", it's called freedom.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I don't want judges involved at all.

When part of Obamacare was overturned as unconstitutional, did you say this?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

This has been explained over and over again, but Ill try it one more time: anybody can go into a bakery and buy any cake on display, and a craftsman does not have to accept a custom order from anybody. Not getting your way is not "discrimination", it's called freedom.

Correct. Bakers can deny custom orders.

But if they're dumb enough to deny custom orders and publicly say they're doing it because the customer is gay, they're going to get slapped. Because public accommodation laws exist.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which part of that do you object to?

The part that you invented.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Correct. Bakers can deny custom orders.

But if they're dumb enough to deny custom orders and publicly say they're doing it because the customer is gay, they're going to get slapped.

Then they will stop saying so, and that will put an end to your game. Do you want justice or do you just want it your way?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Then they will stop saying so, and that will put an end to your game. Do you want justice or do you just want it your way?

The smart ones will, yes. These cases are hard to prove. The ones too dumb to hide it will be weeded out.

Is it ideal? No. My ideal situation would be where nobody gets denied service based on characteristics they can't control. While we're at it, I'd like a unicorn and a winning lottery ticket. In the real world, we'll have to settle for what we have. A business chooses to operate for-profit and to hold out to the public. People don't choose to be latino or female or born in Sweden. When we have to weigh the rights of the two, I'm going to pick the private citizen over the for-profit publicly accommodating business.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The part that you invented.

You think I invented the idea that the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Well, I guess this line of discussion is over then because there's nothing else to say.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

You think I invented the idea that the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Well, I guess this line of discussion is over then because there's nothing else to say.

Good.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

He violated a federal court ruling, duh
A ruling that is (for now) non-binding. Feel free to file a complaint for contempt, but it will be dismissed same as the others.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

legislature isn't granted power to decide the constitutionality of its own laws. .

That's where you're wrong. The supreme court isn't granted the power to decide the constitutionality of the laws written by the legislature. If you disagree with that, go find the section of the constitution in which that power is expressly granted to it.

The judiciary grabbed power that was never intended for it.

The original intent of the supreme court was to settle international and inter-state disputes.


Article 3, Section 2 - US CONSTITUTION (outlines the powers of the supreme court as granted by the constitution)

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
•to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
•to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
•to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
•to Controversies between two or more States;
•between a State and Citizens of another State;
•between Citizens of different States;
•between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


That's it. I don't see anything in there about "judicial review." That's a power the court granted itself after a massive power grab in the 1800's.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

A ruling that is (for now) non-binding. Feel free to file a complaint for contempt, but it will be dismissed with the others.

The ruling is binding.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I don't care about the 14th amendment. The point is that the law isn't determined by the legislature, it's determined by the "interpretations" of activist judges. We as a nation are legislated to by judges.

That's what bothers me. Not some specific ruling or some specific pet issue.

Well get used to it. That is the way it has been under common law going back pretty much to the time of the Magna Carta.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The smart ones will, yes. These cases are hard to prove. The ones too dumb to hide it will be weeded out.

Is it ideal? No. My ideal situation would be where nobody gets denied service based on characteristics they can't control. While we're at it, I'd like a unicorn and a winning lottery ticket. In the real world, we'll have to settle for what we have. A business chooses to operate for-profit and to hold out to the public. People don't choose to be latino or female or born in Sweden. When we have to weigh the rights of the two, I'm going to pick the private citizen over the for-profit publicly accommodating business.

Well, guess what? Public businesses are owned by Latinos, females, and Swedes.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

That's where you're wrong. The supreme court isn't granted the power to decide the constitutionality of the laws written by the legislature. If you disagree with that, go find the section of the constitution in which that power is expressly granted to it.

The judiciary grabbed power that was never intended for it.

The original intent of the supreme court was to settle international and inter-state disputes.


Article 3, Section 2 - US CONSTITUTION (outlines the powers of the supreme court as granted by the constitution)

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
•to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
•to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
•to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
•to Controversies between two or more States;
•between a State and Citizens of another State;
•between Citizens of different States;
•between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


That's it. I don't see anything in there about "judicial review." That's a power the court granted itself after a massive power grab in the 1800's.

That's your interpretation.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Well, guess what? Public businesses are owned by Latinos, females, and Swedes.

Yes. So?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

A ruling that is (for now) non-binding. Feel free to file a complaint for contempt, but it will be dismissed same as the others.

Why do you think it's non binding?

Edit: And the SC this morning or yesterday declined to stay the Federal District Court's order pending appeal. Which
puts any judges who fail to perform SS marriages in contempt. It also probably indicates how the court is going to go on it's upcoming SS marriage case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses


If I have to explain, you sure as hell won't understand.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The ruling is binding.
On the Attorney General. Who doesn't issue licences.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

If I have to explain, you sure as hell won't understand.

Try me. Assuming you have an argument. Otherwise dodge yet another question. Your choice.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

When part of Obamacare was overturned as unconstitutional, did you say this?

Actually, yes.

The people elected Obama. The people elected the congress. Together, they passed a bill. If the people don't like that, they can elect new congressmen and a new president.

I would rather have the People make decisions I disagree with than have power taken away from the people by robed judges with powdered wigs, who were not elected and are unaccountable for their actions.

Funny enough, even Obama agrees with me. Or, at least he did back in 2012 when he called the supreme court "an unelected group of people."
 
Back
Top Bottom