CDZ Settled Law

william the wie

Gold Member
Nov 18, 2009
16,667
2,402
280
Sequester is settled law that goes back effectively to Washington. The president cannot spend money except as authorized and only for the purpose authorized but he is not required to spend the money at all.

The president has had the power to restrict most types of international migration since the import of slaves was banned.

That means that those rulings will most likely be overturned when they get to the Supremes in order to maintain the principle of settled law.
 
No such thing. All law can be revisited, and altered, or dispensed with altogether. Even Constitutional law, by the mandated process.

But yes, these rogue legal decisions will be overturned. They have no legal basis, and are no more than personal opinions.

Democrats love to toss turds in the community punch bowl.
 
True but they want to keep Roe v. Wade and many other rulings under the protection of settled law.
 
Well, I would say that it doesn't seem like Roe V. Wade is going anywhere at the moment nor is Obergefell v. Hodges.
 
Both are here to stay but they might well be limited by other means.

Gorsuch said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Like Trump, Gorsuch also thinks gay marriage is settled law.
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.
 
Both are here to stay but they might well be limited by other means.

Gorsuch said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Like Trump, Gorsuch also thinks gay marriage is settled law.
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.

Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
 
Both are here to stay but they might well be limited by other means.

Gorsuch said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Like Trump, Gorsuch also thinks gay marriage is settled law.
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.

Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat
 
Both are here to stay but they might well be limited by other means.

Gorsuch said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Like Trump, Gorsuch also thinks gay marriage is settled law.
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.

Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat

I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
 
Both are here to stay but they might well be limited by other means.

Gorsuch said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Like Trump, Gorsuch also thinks gay marriage is settled law.
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.

Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat

I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
Double talk doesnt change the fact both were imposed.
 
Gorsuch said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Like Trump, Gorsuch also thinks gay marriage is settled law.
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.

Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat

I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
Double talk doesnt change the fact both were imposed.

States voted on it, and passed it.

Federal judges struck down bans on it.

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on it.

Thank goodness we have the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Only in that it was imposed by judges .......no more settled than Roe....however there is too much to correct to engage in those battles now.

Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat

I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
Double talk doesnt change the fact both were imposed.

States voted on it, and passed it.

Federal judges struck down bans on it.

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on it.

Thank goodness we have the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both were imposed.....the states that passed anto gay marriage laws like blue state MN and CA did so in response to the judicial activism and yes they were overturned thus the imposed. That An arguemnet can be made against anything, has no bearing on its merrits and thus thats a worthless point
 
Are you trying to tell me you think both things are unconstitutional?
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat

I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
Double talk doesnt change the fact both were imposed.

States voted on it, and passed it.

Federal judges struck down bans on it.

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on it.

Thank goodness we have the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both were imposed.....the states that passed anto gay marriage laws like blue state MN and CA did so in response to the judicial activism and yes they were overturned thus the imposed. That An arguemnet can be made against anything, has no bearing on its merrits and thus thats a worthless point

Do you think the Defense of Marriage Act was Constitutional? If so, why?
 
Yep.....all imposed by judicial fiat

I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
Double talk doesnt change the fact both were imposed.

States voted on it, and passed it.

Federal judges struck down bans on it.

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on it.

Thank goodness we have the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both were imposed.....the states that passed anto gay marriage laws like blue state MN and CA did so in response to the judicial activism and yes they were overturned thus the imposed. That An arguemnet can be made against anything, has no bearing on its merrits and thus thats a worthless point

Do you think the Defense of Marriage Act was Constitutional? If so, why?
First explain how the Clintons and Obama were for DOMA before they were against it.......btw most of the follow on that was predicted that the left mocked is happening......
 
I disagree. Much of the argument to ban same sex marriage was based on religion, something in and of itself would be unconstitutional and that for every argument against gay marriage, there's an argument to refute it.
Double talk doesnt change the fact both were imposed.

States voted on it, and passed it.

Federal judges struck down bans on it.

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on it.

Thank goodness we have the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both were imposed.....the states that passed anto gay marriage laws like blue state MN and CA did so in response to the judicial activism and yes they were overturned thus the imposed. That An arguemnet can be made against anything, has no bearing on its merrits and thus thats a worthless point

Do you think the Defense of Marriage Act was Constitutional? If so, why?
First explain how the Clintons and Obama were for DOMA before they were against it.......btw most of the follow on that was predicted that the left mocked is happening......

I think it was for political purposes, but I do think gay marriage is Constitutional as it has been ruled as such and therefore it's a good thing a ban on it was struck down.
 
FWIW, my opinions:

Gay Marriage: Who cares? Marry who you want, just don't expect anyone, especially the government, to give a damn. Get the government out of the bedroom, and out of marriage. Put a system in place to appoint someone as your medical and/or financial proxy for when the time comes that you can no longer look after your own affairs. Oh, wait a second here, that has already been done.

Roe v. Wade: Again, who cares? If you, as a woman, want to have an abortion, can pay for it, and have found someone to do it, have at it. That's between you, your "doctor", the "father", and your God (if you believe in one). I see no room for the government in anyone's uterus. Now, if the "father" wants the baby, once it's carried to birth, then we have another matter altogether. Not sure where I stand on this one, yet, but government, through civil courts, may well have a role to play here.
 
Roe v. Wade: Again, who cares? If you, as a woman, want to have an abortion, can pay for it, and have found someone to do it, have at it. That's between you, your "doctor", the "father", and your God (if you believe in one).

So you oppose the prosecution of Kermit Gosnell? And what rights does the "father" have? Hmm?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top