In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Syriusly]

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

Some people still can't stand that our President has dark skin.

 

[Syriusly]

TheOldSchool...maybe you have a substantive rebuttal? No? The ad hominems always pop up when the substance is lacking...

Having been raised by Puerto Ricans and having spent a chunk of my life there I know the people on the island harbor intense prejudice against certain groups of people. That ignorance is likely a big factor in the high crime rate and floundering economy there. This Judge, while having merited his post over 30 years ago, is also a product of that ignorance and stupidity.

Make no mistake; his decision was as much based on his ideology as it was on the constitution. And that is why I'm confident his ruling will be overturned.

So now latinos are ignorant bigots? Criminals and paupers? Stupid?..

And nowhere did he say that.

Once again- you are simply just making stuff up.

 

[Skylar]

Now this is what I'm talking about. This guy isn't a activist political correct judge overturning the will of the people. His ruling relied on the Constitution and legal precedent.


In Elegant Ruling Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage in Puerto Rico

A ruling that most likely won't do so well on appeal....where the record is currently 50 to 2 in favor of gay marriage. And that's including the ruling in Puerto Rico. With every circuit appeals court to hear such a case overruling such bans as unconstitutional and unenforceable.

 

[Skylar]

No, I've told you how the Supreme Court DID rule [Windsor] and how it SHOULD rule [Windsor]. Which is precisely what this judge did too.

I'm sure this will be turned over on appeal, sadly. Letting those four conservatives on SCOTUS look clean...so they think... *yawn*...what's the point in voting?

Save of course that the courts didn't say what you claimed they did in the Windsor ruling. They never declared gay marriage bans constitutional in the Windsor ruling. They never reauthorized Prop 8.

You made all that up. Rendering your 'what I've told you' standard essentially worthless. As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

I almost posted about this earlier today. I decided to wait until the appellate court overturns it.

It sounds as if you already know what will happen. In other words, it sounds as if some judges have been purchased or blackmailed. Otherwise we would assume that judges usually balk at overturning lower verdicts that have been soundly argued.

And by 'soundly argued', you mean that they agreed with you? It sounds to me that you're once again judging the validity of a process with its adherence to what you already believed. Sorry, Silo.....but the judicial process doesn't suddenly become corrupt and 'bought' just because you don't like the verdict. As you're not the standard of justice, constitutionality or much of anything.

Face it.....you were just wrong. You made all sorts of elaborate predictions on how the courts were going to rule, gave us elaborate motivations for what the court intended, complete with internal dialogue from the justices. And you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

But rather than face the simple fact that you were wrong, you've doubled down on conspiracy batshit. And have invented a grand new conspiracy where the entire judiciary is corrupt rather than you being wrong. If you've never heard of Occam's Razor, you may want to look it up.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I've told you how the Supreme Court DID rule [Windsor] and how it SHOULD rule [Windsor]. Which is precisely what this judge did too.

I'm sure this will be turned over on appeal, sadly. Letting those four conservatives on SCOTUS look clean...so they think... *yawn*...what's the point in voting?

Save of course that the courts didn't say what you claimed they did in the Windsor ruling. They never declared gay marriage bans constitutional in the Windsor ruling. They never reauthorized Prop 8.

You made all that up. Rendering your 'what I've told you' standard essentially worthless. As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

District judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, a Carter appointee, delivered a ruling that relied on a conservative reading of the Constitution and legal precedent, and created the potential for a split among the U.S. circuits that could prod the Supreme Court to take up the question in future...

And more. Hey Jakey, does this reasoning sound familiar? It should. You've been hearing it from me ever since Windsor was published on the net:

"In an elegant decision handed down Tuesday, Perez-Gimenez relies on two basic arguments. First, he notes that the U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage, thus reserving authority over marriage to the states--and adds that a 1972 precedent to that effect in Baker v. Nelson, which other courts have considered void, still holds. Only the Supreme Court, Perez-Gimenez says, may overturn Baker--and to this date, he notes, it has declined to do so.
Second, Perez-Gimenez notes that last year's twin rulings in the celebrated U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry do not actually void state powers to ban gay marriage. Hollingsworth v. Perry, he notes, was dealt with on procedural grounds, and though Windsor struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, it "reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question.""

We still haven't heard from the 6th circuit.

Well done Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez!

Well SCOTUS? You going to keep allowing the dissolving of states laws... allowing gays and polygamists to "marry in" in the interim in violation of the Will of tens of millions of voters? Or are you going to give those tens of millions a voice in a long-overdue hearing?

Those who understand the issues having been waiting for the 6th to get involved.

This ruling does just that, which will allow the 6th to deny the ruling, which will make marriage equality to be the law of the land, or appeal it, which will allow SCOTUS to rule 7 -2 in favor of marriage equality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I've told you how the Supreme Court DID rule [Windsor] and how it SHOULD rule [Windsor]. Which is precisely what this judge did too.

I'm sure this will be turned over on appeal, sadly. Letting those four conservatives on SCOTUS look clean...so they think... *yawn*...what's the point in voting?

You are the one in the vast minority on court rulings, bub.

Save of course that the courts didn't say what you claimed they did in the Windsor ruling. They never declared gay marriage bans constitutional in the Windsor ruling. They never reauthorized Prop 8.

You made all that up. Rendering your 'what I've told you' standard essentially worthless. As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I've told you how the Supreme Court DID rule [Windsor] and how it SHOULD rule [Windsor]. Which is precisely what this judge did too.

I'm sure this will be turned over on appeal, sadly. Letting those four conservatives on SCOTUS look clean...so they think... *yawn*...what's the point in voting?

Save of course that the courts didn't say what you claimed they did in the Windsor ruling. They never declared gay marriage bans constitutional in the Windsor ruling. They never reauthorized Prop 8.

You made all that up. Rendering your 'what I've told you' standard essentially worthless. As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.

I have read the rulings- the PR ruling, the Windsor ruling and the DOMA ruling.

Skylar is correct- Silhouette doesn't have a clue.

That isn't to say that it is a slam dunk how the Appeals Court will rule.

But be careful what you wish for- if the Appeals Court agrees with the PR judge, then it will go to the Supreme Court- who will have a genuine legal controversy to rule on their hands.

Since gay couples are marrying in 31 states now- and there are probably over 100,000 married gay couples......there would be huge ramifications on over-ruling the decisions affecting those 31 states. And virtually no ramifications for over-ruling the judge in PR.

But I will give this to the Conservatives- at last they have found one judge who sort of, kind of agrees with them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

 

[Syriusly]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

How could the Supreme Court find those marriages Constitutional- if they were in violation of what the Supreme then declares to be valid state laws?

Far from being the only rational decision- it is the irrational decision. The Supreme courts has over-ruled State laws regarding marriage multiple times- most notably in Loving v. Virginia.

If these decisions were left to legislators and voters.....mixed race marriage might still be illegal in Virginia today.

 

[Silhouette]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

How could the Supreme Court find those marriages Constitutional- if they were in violation of what the Supreme then declares to be valid state laws?

Far from being the only rational decision- it is the irrational decision. The Supreme courts has over-ruled State laws regarding marriage multiple times- most notably in Loving v. Virginia.

If these decisions were left to legislators and voters.....mixed race marriage might still be illegal in Virginia today.

"We've got our toe in the door!" say the clubbers of baby seals whose poaching the legal system was not caught thusfar. Therefore all these pelts are LEGAL TO TRADE!"

Have fun sorting that shit out SCOTUS. BTW SCOTUS, how are you preparing to handle the polygamy and incest cases soon to pend at your Court? Been watching what's been happening to European Courts after they blindly plunged into the "just some sexually deviant behaviors get special protection" precedent nightmare?

They'd better get on this crap and get on it ASAP. And this time they'd better think of the children in every single way they wouldn't allow themselves to before because of their hysteria and pity for "those poor gays we know"...

If you take away state's discreet communities ability to regulate this to keep its distance from children, you'll be praying for nazi Germany by comparison in 30 years from now..

 

[Syriusly]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

How could the Supreme Court find those marriages Constitutional- if they were in violation of what the Supreme then declares to be valid state laws?

Far from being the only rational decision- it is the irrational decision. The Supreme courts has over-ruled State laws regarding marriage multiple times- most notably in Loving v. Virginia.

If these decisions were left to legislators and voters.....mixed race marriage might still be illegal in Virginia today.

"We've got our toe in the door!" say the clubbers of baby seals whose poaching the legal system was not caught thusfar. Therefore all these pelts are LEGAL TO TRADE!"

Have fun sorting that shit out SCOTUS. BTW SCOTUS, how are you preparing to handle the polygamy and incest cases soon to pend at your Court? Been watching what's been happening to European Courts after they blindly plunged into the "just some sexually deviant behaviors get special protection" precedent nightmare?

They'd better get on this crap and get on it ASAP. And this time they'd better think of the children in every single way they wouldn't allow themselves to before because of their hysteria and pity for "those poor gays we know"...

If you take away state's discreet communities ability to regulate this to keep its distance from children, you'll be praying for nazi Germany by comparison in 30 years from now..

More bat guano crazy from Silhouette expressing her true sentiments

 

[Skylar]

Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.

Then perhaps you could educate us all and show us where in the Windsor ruling it says that gay marriage bans are constitutional and that Prop 8 is reauthorized.

Unless you haven't actually read the ruling and you're once again talking out of your ass about a topic you know nothing about. Then you might find it a bit more difficult.

 

[Skylar]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

They could. But its unlikely that they will. As the court is loath to strip a group of rights they've already had. And Kennedy established in Romer V. Evans the criteria by which a law could be valid: 1) It didn't interfere with fundamental rights. 2) It didn't target a specific group 3) it had a compelling state interest.

Gay marriage bans fail on all 3. As marriage is a fundamental right. Gay marriage bans do target gays. And the bans serve no compelling state interest. Nor even have a rational reason.

It seems.....unlikely, that Kennedy would ignore his own counsel and instead abide yours.

 

[Skylar]

Have fun sorting that shit out SCOTUS. BTW SCOTUS, how are you preparing to handle the polygamy and incest cases soon to pend at your Court? Been watching what's been happening to European Courts after they blindly plunged into the "just some sexually deviant behaviors get special protection" precedent nightmare?

The USSC has been consistent. They've preserved every lower court ruling that overrules gay marriage bans. They ruled that gays can be protected from discrimination. And they've overturned huge parts of DOMA.

And society hasn't collapsed. Our European allies haven't abandoned us and sided with Russia. The sky hasn't fallen.

Relax, Chicken Little. Its gonna be okay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

Not on these issues, no, the legislatures, the representative will of the People, do not; SCOTUS, per Article III of the Constitution, does.

 

[Silhouette]

How much of the hetero culture gets behind those posters vs how much of the homo culture gets behind pride parades?

Who condones what and in what proportion? We can single out loonies in the ranks of heteros easily. Not so easily done in the LGBT ranks because 0% of them have spoken out publicly against pride parades or Harvey Milk. When the placement of children is in question, we look at what the culture condones as a unit. 0% is an awfully low number. Yet when you you see hate posters, whose origins very well may be LGBT sympathy-ramping posing as "hetero haters"...you see denouncement and disgust of that from the general hetero community.

To oppose gay marriage does not equal hate. Another fallicy in thinking is you weren't born that way either. You were inducted by the LGBT culture.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Considering LGBT is roughly 3 to 5% of population if you give them benefit of the doubt, Sil, heteros are divided about 1 to 1, with the millennials about 3 to 1.

You lose on the numbers.

 

[Silhouette]

Considering LGBT is roughly 3 to 5% of population if you give them benefit of the doubt, Sil, heteros are divided about 1 to 1, with the millennials about 3 to 1.

You lose on the numbers.

We'll see about that Jake. Hey Jake....didn't you like how that judge's interpretation of Windsor 2013 was identical to mine? How would you say he made a "mistake" in interpreting Windsor Jake?