NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling - Page 7 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
crimsonsaint
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Nov 2009
31357 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

If they do toss the case and not issue a broad ruling it will be much to the delight of Democrats who see this as a winning issue going forward, and much to the chagrin of the GOP (whether they admit it or not) knowing their party will be accused of intolerance (further alienating them from the majority (some polls suggest 80%) of young Americans.


Tell me how the Supreme Court tossing out a case hurts the GOP? And by your comments it looks like Democrats could give a flip about homo marriage. They just want to use it for political gain. Is that right?






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Could DOMA be considered tax policy like Obamacare was (thus constitutional)?


No. Obamacare wasn't constitutional because it was "tax policy". It was constitutional because it was a tax, due to the fact that it required people to pay money to the government if they didn't buy insurance. DOMA is not a tax. It does not require anyone to pay any money to the government.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Tell me how the Supreme Court tossing out a case hurts the GOP?


By not issuing a sweeping ruling affirming a constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, SCOTUS would insure that the issue continues to be a political issue for future elections. Since their position is shared by the majority of Americans, Democrats probably think this would help them going forward.

quote:

it looks like Democrats could give a flip about homo marriage. They just want to use it for political gain. Is that right?


Who knows? Sure seems like it, given that they overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage just 15 years ago when public opinion was strongly that way. They probably would be happy to see the gay marriage issue resolved in favor of allowing gay marriage nationwide, but it probably wouldn't upset them if the debate, which they are winning in a blowout, continues for a while longer.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 2:30 pm


Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Who knows? Sure seems like it, given that they overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage just 15 years ago when public opinion was strongly that way. They probably would be happy to see the gay marriage issue resolved in favor of allowing gay marriage nationwide, but it probably wouldn't upset them if the debate, which they are winning in a blowout, continues for a while longer.


31 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage while only the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington allow same sex marriage.

You call that winning in a blowout?









Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

31 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage


Living in the past as always. Almost all of those states passed those amendments when public opinion was still against legalizing gay marriage and the debate was in its infancy. Now, less than ten years after the first state legalized it, public opinion has changed and the popular vote in four states has been in favor of gay marriage. One of those four even repealed an earlier amendment they had passed (if I recall correctly what the vote in Minnesota was about).

quote:

only the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington allow same sex marriage.


And other states have legalized civil unions. And more are coming. How long do you think it will take Minnesota, whose people just voted to repeal its constitutional amendment against gay marriage, to legalize it? Depending on the Supreme Court's ruling on Prop 8, California will soon be on the list, either by virtue of the court rulings or through another ballot initiative. In the words of Chief Justice Roberts, Republicans, not to mention Democrats, are falling over themselves to reverse their earlier positions against it. Public support of gay marriage has reached its highest level in history with a solid majority in favor of legalizing it, an almost complete reversal of where public opinion stood just 10 years ago. And among younger people, whose opinions portend future public opinion, support is even higher, in the 70-80% range. Even one of the opponents' own lackeys, Bill O'Reilly for crying out loud, openly and on national television, says their arguments are crap.

Other than in a few backward states where they still think Jesus rode dinosaurs, this will be a losing issue for any party or politician who opposes legalization of gay marriage.

The tide has clearly turned. Gay marriage opponents are losing the debate. In a blowout.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 3:09 pm


Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:


But you brought up that point to support your argument that the Supreme Court would not agree to hear the case and then throw it out for lack of standing. The Supreme Court very well might, and frequently does, do that, and they wouldn't give a rat's arse what the voters of California think.


I was speaking in regards to the effect either action would have on the vote of the people of California who approved Prop 8.

quote:

You said they should. Doesn't that imply that you think they can?


They can be "activist" judges and do what is right even if there is no legal precedent for them to rule that way.

After all, that's what the left wants judges to do.

quote:

The State of California is a legal fiction, like a corporation, that, while not an individual person, is given a status similar to a person. Like any such entity, since it is not an actual person, it is represented and enabled to act through certain designated individuals, whether that be a CEO, board of directors, governor, attorney general, etc. For purposes of legal standing to institute a case on behalf of the entity, an individual must be one of those designated people through whom the fictional "person" is authorized to act. In the case of the State of California, when a law of the state is challenged in court, that designated individual is the attorney general.


If that is the case then any law passed by the vote of the people using the initiative process that is challenged in court could in effect be vetoed by an Attorney General who opposes the law by simply refusing to defend it in court.

That would destroy the whole initiative process since it gives the power of veto to the Attorney General over any law passed by the initiative process.








Back to top
Newbomb Turk
Navy Fan
perfectanschlagen
Member since May 2008
9961 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

31 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage while only the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington allow same sex marriage.

You call that winning in a blowout?


Nuts has clearly been brainwashed by the gay rights militant propaganda machine.

When all the can muster is 52% in the People's Republic of the DNC's Maryland, they know that they are going NOWHERE FAST.

And, their only hope is to get biased and politicized Justices who will sh!t and piss all over the Constitution to give them a POLITICAL victory that they can't achieve using the CONSTITUTIONAL process.






Back to top
Newbomb Turk
Navy Fan
perfectanschlagen
Member since May 2008
9961 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

The tide has clearly turned. Gay marriage opponents are losing the debate. In a blowout.


WRONG AGAIN.

People will not answer polls because of the terrorist in the militant gay movement. Just look at what happened to Alan Autrey and everyone else who supported Prop. 8.

BUT, they vote LOUD AND F*CKING CLEAR at the ballot box. In a state like Maryland, anything under 70% means that nationwide the gay rights mafia and its terrorist threats are LOSING. You will not have gay marriage in Louisiana for at least 100 years - despite your attempts to brainwash school children in the public schools.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

I was speaking in regards to the effect either action would have on the vote of the people of California who approved Prop 8.


No, you said they would not dismiss it on standing because if they were going to do that they would never have decided to take up the writ application in the first place. I said that was bull shite because the legal effects of those two courses of action are very different. You then brought up the voters' feelings, and I said that would not matter to the court.

I get that you will be upset if they throw it out on standing. I'd rather see a definitive ruling, too, to be honest. But whether the feelings of California voters will be hurt will have NO impact on the decision, I assure you.

quote:

They can be "activist" judges and do what is right even if there is no legal precedent for them to rule that way.


To do away with the requirement that a party have standing in order to pursue a case would be the biggest reversal of "legal precedent" in the history of the court.

quote:

After all, that's what the left wants judges to do.


Gay marriage supporters want the court to apply the constitutional requirements of equal protection under the law and substantive due process. There's nothing revolutionary or even "activist" about that.

quote:

If that is the case then any law passed by the vote of the people using the initiative process that is challenged in court could in effect be vetoed by an Attorney General who opposes the law by simply refusing to defend it in court.


Exactly, which is what I said from the beginning, which makes it a tricky issue.

quote:

That would destroy the whole initiative process since it gives the power of veto to the Attorney General over any law passed by the initiative process.


Honestly, that might be the best thing that ever happened for California. The ballot initiative process is the main reason they are in the financial mess they're in. Expenditures mandated by ballot initiatives are, if I recall correctly what I've read, a majority of the state's budget, and other regulations mandated by ballot initiatives have hurt the climate for business there, or so I've been told.

California is living proof that the public are stupid and direct democracy would be a disaster.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 3:18 pm


Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:


And I explained to you that that does not matter. The State of California has multiple mechanisms for enacting its laws. Legislative action and ballot initiatives are both used to enact laws of the State of California. No matter which mechanism is used, the State of California is still enacting the law.


And I just explained that if the method of enacting the law is the initiative process and the SCOTUS dismisses the case for lack of standing because the Attorney General is the only representative of the State of California who can defend Prop 8 in court then you have given the Attorney General the power to veto any law that the Attorney General opposes which was enacted by the initiative process and challenged in court.


quote:

Which is probably one of the MANY reasons they didn't hire you to represent them.


No, they told me they couldn't hire me because I am too good looking.

quote:

I won't be correct because I haven't made a prediction. I have made a very shaky guess that they will dismiss on standing, but that is all it is. They may find that there is standing. So what? I have never said the applicants here do not have standing. I have said they might not. I have said it's a tricky issue. I have said standing is very questionable in this case. Apparently, the court agrees because THEY HIRED THEIR OWN LAWYER TO ARGUE THE ISSUE TO THEM. And yes, we will see what the court does.


You haven't made a prediction. You just made a very shaky guess.

Now you are really trying to talk like an attorney.









Back to top
Newbomb Turk
Navy Fan
perfectanschlagen
Member since May 2008
9961 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

There's nothing revolutionary or even "activist" about that.


NO ONE who ever voted on ANYTHING contained in the Constitution EVER thought that the words contained therein could ever be so perverted and bastardized to make a claim that there is a Constitutional RIGHT to gay marriage.

When the gay activist were looking to overturn Lawrence v Texas, this was a major concern, i.e., the slippery slope. Back then the gay activist's comeback was, "Don't be stupid, no one has ever suggested and no one with an IQ over 10 would ever suggest that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage."

Yet, here we are. It's all part of "progressivism." What progressives can't get passed in a Constitutional manner they have biased, politicized and intellectually bankrupt Judges declare as Constitutional rights.

And, that IS the definition of Judicial Activism.






Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:


No, you said they would not dismiss it on standing because if they were going to do that they would never have decided to take up the writ application in the first place. I said that was bull shite because the legal effects of those two courses of action are very different. You then brought up the voters' feelings, and I said that would not matter to the court.

I get that you will be upset if they throw it out on standing. I'd rather see a definitive ruling, too, to be honest. But whether the feelings of California voters will be hurt will have NO impact on the decision, I assure you.


I said if they were going to throw out the case on lack of standing then they would have voted not to hear the case in the first place and not waste their time since the effect of doing either is the same which is that same sex marriage is legal in California.

You pointed out how doing one or the other may have different effects on different parts of the Ninth District.

I just expressed how the voters who approved Prop 8 will feel if it is dismissed on a lack of standing.

The feelings of the voters may not affect how the SCOTUS rules but the Court is always reluctant to throw out the will of the people for obvious reasons.

quote:

To do away with the requirement that a party have standing in order to pursue a case would be the biggest reversal of "legal precedent" in the history of the court.


To rule that an Attorney General who opposes an initiative ballot measure that is challenged in court can veto it by simply refusing to defend it in court would be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the history of the court.

quote:

Gay marriage supporters want the court to apply the constitutional requirements of equal protection under the law and substantive due process. There's nothing revolutionary or even "activist" about that.


The Left sees the Constitution as a "living document" so that rulings regarding what's constitutional or unconstitutional including rulings regarding equal protection under the law and due process can be made in spite of past legal precedent.

quote:

Honestly, that might be the best thing that ever happened for California. The ballot initiative process is the main reason they are in the financial mess they're in.


The initiative process is the only way California citizens can get laws passed that the legislators refuse to pass for political reasons.

I should know because I authored an initiative ballot measure in San Francisco, collected the thousands of signatures that were needed to qualify it for the ballot then went on TV and radio and convinced the voters of San Francisco to pass it. If I hadn't had the initiative process to get the law passed then the local Board of Supervisors would never have passed it because of the influence that big businesses and the Chamber of Commerce has with the BOS.

The initiative process it the best thing the people of California have to pass laws which protect the interest of the people not big business and anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of the people.







Back to top
Newbomb Turk
Navy Fan
perfectanschlagen
Member since May 2008
9961 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

The Left fraudulently sees the Constitution as a "living document" so that they can get biased, politicized and intellectually bankrupt Judges to declare their POLITICAL AGENDA as "Constitutional RIGHTS" when they can't get them passed in a Constitutional manner.


FIFY!






Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

And other states have legalized civil unions. And more are coming. How long do you think it will take Minnesota, whose people just voted to repeal its constitutional amendment against gay marriage, to legalize it? Depending on the Supreme Court's ruling on Prop 8, California will soon be on the list, either by virtue of the court rulings or through another ballot initiative. In the words of Chief Justice Roberts, Republicans, not to mention Democrats, are falling over themselves to reverse their earlier positions against it. Public support of gay marriage has reached its highest level in history with a solid majority in favor of legalizing it, an almost complete reversal of where public opinion stood just 10 years ago. And among younger people, whose opinions portend future public opinion, support is even higher, in the 70-80% range. Even one of the opponents' own lackeys, Bill O'Reilly for crying out loud, openly and on national television, says their arguments are crap.

Other than in a few backward states where they still think Jesus rode dinosaurs, this will be a losing issue for any party or politician who opposes legalization of gay marriage.

The tide has clearly turned.



According to the wiki link I previously posted:

Amendments that grant legislative authority to ban same-sex marriage


State Year Support vote %
Hawaii 1998 69%

Amendments that ban same-sex marriage


State Year Support vote % Title Amendment (in relevant part)
Alaska 1998 68%[]
Nevada 2000, 2002[b] 69.6%
Mississippi 2004 86%[
Missouri 2004 72%
Montana 2004 67%
Oregon 2004 57%
Colorado 2006 56%
Tennessee 2006 81%
Arizona 2008 56%[
California 2008 52%[

Amendments that ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but not other contracts


State Year Support vote %
Nebraska 2000 70%
Arkansas 2004 75%
Georgia 2004 76%
Kentucky 2004 75%
Louisiana 2004 78%
North Dakota 2004 73%
Ohio 2004 62%
Oklahoma 2004 76%
Utah 2004 66%
Kansas 2005 70%
Alabama 2006 81%
Idaho 2006 63%
South Carolina[c]2006 78%
South Dakota 2006 52%
Wisconsin 2006 59%
Florida 2008 62%
North Carolina 2012 61%

State Year Support vote %
Michigan 2004 59%
Virginia 2006 57%

That's just since 1998 and most are since 2004.

Spin your spinning wheel, dude.






This post was edited on 3/28 at 4:47 pm


Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

The Left fraudulently sees the Constitution as a "living document" so that they can get biased, politicized and intellectually bankrupt Judges to declare their POLITICAL AGENDA as "Constitutional RIGHTS" when they can't get them passed in a Constitutional manner.


quote:

FIFY!










Back to top
Scoop
LSU Fan
Where you live
Member since Sep 2005
27057 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


How can the Supreme Court rule on this without saying that marriage is a civil right?

If marriage is a civil right, then the federal government would be required to provide a spouse for anyone that could not find one on their own.

Literally, a person that wanted to be married but could not find someone to marry them would in effect be deprived of their civil rights.

I support gay civil unions and the right of religious organizations that so desire to religiously sanction gay marriage ceremonies, but you can't declare marriage a civil right.

It is ludicrous.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

NO ONE who ever voted on ANYTHING contained in the Constitution EVER thought that the words contained therein could ever be so perverted and bastardized to make a claim that there is a Constitutional RIGHT to gay marriage.


You are almost certainly correct. Nor did they envision it would be used to guarantee the freedom to look at dirty pictures on the internet, keep a cop from bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto your porch or placing a GPS device on your car, or practice contraception.

They didn't even pretend to be able to foresee what might happen in this country over the centuries that they hoped this document would endure. They knew they couldn't predict the future. So they did something brilliant.

They decided not to write thousands of pages listing detailed rules and requirements that would have fit the needs of their day. Instead, they wrote a very short document that dealt primarily with broad principles of freedom, checks and balances and limitations on the power of government. They hoped that future generations could, by applying those broad and general principles to whatever situations they faced, maintain the United States as the free and just society the founders wanted it to be. Instead of trying to address every detail of every possible situation, they decided to leave that to the generations that faced those situations.

It has worked beautifully. In over 200 years, the document has only had to be amended 17 times (the first 10 amendments were appended to the original document and ratified along with it). It remains today one of the most beautifully simple and concise legal documents in history. Still, some amendments have added to its broad principles. What were originally intended as limits on the power of the federal government only (the Bill of Rights) were extended (through the 14th amendment) to similarly limit the power of states.

This document, and the amendments to it, guarantee freedom. The freedom to do what? Well, they didn't know at the time what all people would think of to do in future centuries, so they didn't try to spell out in detail what exact conduct they wanted people to be free to do. Instead, they just said that people were entitled to liberty, equal protection of the law, due process, etc., and left it to their progeny to decide what people should be free to do.

If they hadn't left the constitution so vague and open-ended, and hadn't intentionally given future generations the latitude to adapt it to the needs of society as they arose, we'd have had to abandon it a long time ago, and there'd be no telling what we would have today. That's probably why they did it.

So, yes, Newbomb. The founders and original drafters of the constitution DID think that future generations would use this document to protect freedoms they never dreamed of, or even freedoms they would never have dreamed of giving to people of that time, even if they did know of them. That's exactly what they wanted us to do.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 4:57 pm


Back to top
TigerintheNO
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
22447 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Nor did they envision it would be used to guarantee the freedom to look at dirty pictures on the internet, keep a cop from bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto your porch or placing a GPS device on your car, or practice contraception.



Those thing weren't around when the constitution was written, gay sex was.


quote:

Instead of trying to address every detail of every possible situation, they decided to leave that to the generations that faced those situations.


correct

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.








Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3238 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


And they gave a means for anyone to change the Constitution. It's called amending the Constitution.

If you want same sex couples to be able to get married then get an amendment passed just like everyone else had to do to change the Constitution.

Don't redefine words to include that which was meant to be excluded and don't have activist judges make rulings contrary to past legal pecedentt and well settled law.








Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

That's just since 1998 and most are since 2004


One in the last 5 years (and it was freaking bible-thumping North Carolina). All others are 2008 or earlier. No one doubts that public opinion was against gay marriage, especially in some of the knuckle-dragger states listed, back then. But a lot has changed in the last five years, mainly because of the debate that these ballot initiatives brought into the mainstream. Predictably, within a few years after it became a mainstream debate and people had heard all the arguments on both sides, public opinion went the way of the best and most sensible arguments.

The funny thing is that it was the opponents of gay marriage, not the supporters, who brought this issue into the mainstream by bringing all these initiatives up for votes. And most hilarious of all, they didn't even have to do it because gay marriage was already illegal in every single one of the states where they brought it up. So, they picked a completely useless and unnecessary fight which has now started biting them in the ass. I'm not religious, but that's some serious Karma!



This post was edited on 3/28 at 5:09 pm


Back to top


Back to top




//