This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.
Some people still can't stand that our President has dark skin.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.
So now latinos are ignorant bigots? Criminals and paupers? Stupid?..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.
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
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?
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.I almost posted about this earlier today. I decided to wait until the appellate court overturns it.
Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.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.
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?
Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.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.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.
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.
"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!"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!"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.
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..
Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.
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.
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?
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.
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?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.