• 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!

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, but I'm against it.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, and I'm in favor of it too.

    Votes: 31 68.9%

  • They'll rule against SSM, and I'm against it as well.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They'll rule against SSM, but I support SSM rights.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They won't actually rule on it. Some loop hole will prevent a true decision.

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • They'll wuss out and leave it to each state - which is total BS in my mind.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll leave it to each state, as it should be in my opinion.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Total voters
    45
Paschendale said:
They've failed in every other case save for the sixth circuit decision that fairly transparently acknowledged that it had no basis to rule the way it did but decided to anyway.
Click to expand...

Maybe the supreme court was finally ready to rule on it, so they asked the 6th circuit to come out against it so they had a case to rule on....
 
paddymcdougall said:
Maybe the supreme court was finally ready to rule on it, so they asked the 6th circuit to come out against it so they had a case to rule on....
Click to expand...

If there was no circuit split, the court wouldn't have to rule on it at all. If all they were going to do was uphold the standing circuit decisions, there's no need for that. They could have taken up the last round of appeals. I think we're long past any surprises on this issue.
 
Paschendale said:
If there was no circuit split, the court wouldn't have to rule on it at all. If all they were going to do was uphold the standing circuit decisions, there's no need for that. They could have taken up the last round of appeals. I think we're long past any surprises on this issue.
Click to expand...

good point. Just don't know why the 6th court went the way it did go.
 
paddymcdougall said:
good point. Just don't know why the 6th court went the way it did go.
Click to expand...

My guess at the time was that the judges decided to ignore the law and follow their own prejudices. But it might have been intentional to force the supreme court to rule. If there was a plan like that, I think it came from the circuit court and not the supreme court.
 
Paschendale said:
My guess at the time was that the judges decided to ignore the law and follow their own prejudices. But it might have been intentional to force the supreme court to rule. If there was a plan like that, I think it came from the circuit court and not the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.

Just hope the SCOTUS finally legalizes it for all.
 
Paschendale said:
My guess at the time was that the judges decided to ignore the law and follow their own prejudices. But it might have been intentional to force the supreme court to rule. If there was a plan like that, I think it came from the circuit court and not the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The arguments made in those rulings were so bad that I can't help but wonder if it was intentional.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah. The arguments made in those rulings were so bad that I can't help but wonder if it was intentional.
Click to expand...

It was intentional in the same vein that scalia's anti gay dissents are intentional. Bigotry itself tends to produce the most illogical arguments.

The 6th has been the most overturned district in the country lately by a wide margin. They don't care and probly even oblivious the SCOTUS exists. They're just full of inept, bigoted judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom