States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[ShootSpeeders]

The Supreme Court cannot introduce or get rid of legislation. It has never, ever done this. It tells the states or the feds that their law is unconstitutional and that it needs to be written again....

HAHAHA. What a brazen lie. In roe v wade the scotus wrote a law saying first trimester abortions were legal. In plyler v doe they wrote a law that said states must give free k-12 to illegals. They write laws all the time. You know nothing.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court cannot introduce or get rid of legislation. It has never, ever done this. It tells the states or the feds that their law is unconstitutional and that it needs to be written again....

HAHAHA. What a brazen lie. In roe v wade the scotus wrote a law saying first trimester abortions were legal. In plyler v doe they wrote a law that said states must give free k-12 to illegals. They write laws all the time. You know nothing.

No, they didn't write the law. They interpret the constitution. They say what laws are legal or not, and the states have to comply with this.

Again, it's not my fault you don't get it. Or you don't want to get it because you want to pretend that the Supreme Court (the CONSERVATIVE 5/4 SUPREME COURT) has somehow done something it shouldn't because you can't hold down your bigotry

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court cannot introduce or get rid of legislation. It has never, ever done this. It tells the states or the feds that their law is unconstitutional and that it needs to be written again....

HAHAHA. What a brazen lie. In roe v wade the scotus wrote a law saying first trimester abortions were legal. In plyler v doe they wrote a law that said states must give free k-12 to illegals. They write laws all the time. You know nothing.

No, they didn't write the law. They interpret the constitution. They say what laws are legal or not, and the states have to comply with this.

Again, it's not my fault you don't get it. Or you don't want to get it because you want to pretend that the Supreme Court (the CONSERVATIVE 5/4 SUPREME COURT) has somehow done something it shouldn't because you can't hold down your bigotry

Its far more fundamental than that. Shooter doesn't believe in legal precedent, stare decisis, judicial review, any of it. He doesn't feel the supreme court has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of any law. And straight up ignores the 14th amendment entirely.

There's not much you can do with that degree of willful ignorance beyond pat them on the head and make sure they don't have access to sharp objects.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Its far more fundamental than that. Shooter doesn't believe in legal precedent, stare decisis, judicial review, any of it.

The scotus doesn't believe in stare decisis either as they emphatically showed in bush v gore 2000.

 

[Skylar]

Its far more fundamental than that. Shooter doesn't believe in legal precedent, stare decisis, judicial review, any of it.

The scotus doesn't believe in stare decisis either as they emphatically showed in bush v gore 2000.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is legally meaningless.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

HAHAHA. What a brazen lie. In roe v wade the scotus wrote a law saying first trimester abortions were legal. In plyler v doe they wrote a law that said states must give free k-12 to illegals. They write laws all the time. You know nothing.

No, they didn't write the law. They interpret the constitution.

Interpret? So where does the constitution mention abortion or education or the crazy idea that illegal invaders have rights? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Its far more fundamental than that. Shooter doesn't believe in legal precedent, stare decisis, judicial review, any of it.

The scotus doesn't believe in stare decisis either as they emphatically showed in bush v gore 2000.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is legally meaningless.

Address the question i raised. If court rulings become precedent why was the scotus allowed to ignore that principle in bush v gore?

 

[Skylar]

Its far more fundamental than that. Shooter doesn't believe in legal precedent, stare decisis, judicial review, any of it.

The scotus doesn't believe in stare decisis either as they emphatically showed in bush v gore 2000.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is legally meaningless.

Address the question i raised. If court rulings become precedent why was the scotus allowed to ignore that principle in bush v gore?

Who says that they ignored that principle in Bush v. Gore?

 

[World Savior]

The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.

Nothing in the constitution about SSM so how can you say this arose under the constitution. Judges should have said we have no jurisdiction. THINK

If there's nothing in the constitution about GM, then no laws were created nor violated. Which means the government should butt out of marriage business. Which is precisely what SCOTUS did.

And oh by the way, the constitution allows every person the "pursuit of happiness" as long as that happiness does not intrude on seomeone' else's rights and hurt them in a meaningful way to cause actual demonstrable harm.

GM is here to stay.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Address the question i raised. If court rulings become precedent why was the scotus allowed to ignore that principle in bush v gore?

Who says that they ignored that principle in Bush v. Gore?

The SCOTUS said it as part of the ruling in bush v gore. Do some research.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If there's nothing in the constitution about GM, then no laws were created nor violated. Which means the government should butt out of marriage business. Which is precisely what SCOTUS did.

They didn't butt out, you fool. They nullified all states law banning queer marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Address the question i raised. If court rulings become precedent why was the scotus allowed to ignore that principle in bush v gore?

Who says that they ignored that principle in Bush v. Gore?

The SCOTUS said it as part of the ruling in bush v gore. Do some research.

Then quote the portion of the ruling where the Supreme Court said they were ignoring stare decisis.

So far, you've only given me excuses why you can't. Which doesn't bode well for your argument.

 

[World Savior]

If there's nothing in the constitution about GM, then no laws were created nor violated. Which means the government should butt out of marriage business. Which is precisely what SCOTUS did.

They didn't butt out, you fool. They nullified all states law banning queer marriage.

Huh? They said the constitution does not explicitly prohibit such laws.

Assuming you are right about states having the right to deny GM, then those laws infringe on people's right to pursue happiness.

See? Either way you lose. I don't claim to be a constitutional experts. But no matter which you you look at it: States do not have the right to ban GM. SCOTUS rules over states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

HAHAHA. What a brazen lie. In roe v wade the scotus wrote a law saying first trimester abortions were legal. In plyler v doe they wrote a law that said states must give free k-12 to illegals. They write laws all the time. You know nothing.

No, they didn't write the law. They interpret the constitution.

Interpret? So where does the constitution mention abortion or education or the crazy idea that illegal invaders have rights? THINK

You really don't get it, do you?

If there is something like abortion, or education, then the Supreme Court will interpret things in the constitution, ie, stuff that comes up, like equality of the law, prayer or whatever, and then make a decision. If such a law is deemed to be unconstitutional the court will say so. Therefore, in future, any case before the Federal Court system should then follow the SC's lead. So, there's no point in a state keeping the law, because everyone will take the state to court and they know the state will lose every single time. It will cost the state too much money, so instead they just change their laws.

It's how the system works.

But hey, you got annoyed that the court said that all people should be equal under the law, even when it comes to marriage. I get it, you don't like to think you're wrong. But you're wrong.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

But hey, you got annoyed that the court said that all people should be equal under the law, even when it comes to marriage. I get it, you don't like to think you're wrong. But you're wrong.

The court said all people are equal under the law? Then why do we have affirmative action.? THINK

 

[frigidweirdo]

But hey, you got annoyed that the court said that all people should be equal under the law, even when it comes to marriage. I get it, you don't like to think you're wrong. But you're wrong.

The court said all people are equal under the law? Then why do we have affirmative action.? THINK

I don't agree with affirmative action.

Also not everything the Supreme Court decides is necessarily right.

It says equal under the law, but from 1868 to 2015 gay marriage was not protected by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Slavery was legal, segregation was legal, women not being able to vote, blacks not being able to vote, Native Americans being treated like dirt, we could go on all day, couldn't we?

Things are changing. Doesn't mean they're all good now though. Change has a long way to go.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But hey, you got annoyed that the court said that all people should be equal under the law, even when it comes to marriage. I get it, you don't like to think you're wrong. But you're wrong.

The court said all people are equal under the law? Then why do we have affirmative action.? THINK

The court said that all people should be treated equally under the law. Not that they are treated equally.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But hey, you got annoyed that the court said that all people should be equal under the law, even when it comes to marriage. I get it, you don't like to think you're wrong. But you're wrong.

The court said all people are equal under the law? Then why do we have affirmative action.? THINK

The court said that all people should be treated equally under the law. Not that they are treated equally.

I need to be able to say things as concisely as you do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But hey, you got annoyed that the court said that all people should be equal under the law, even when it comes to marriage. I get it, you don't like to think you're wrong. But you're wrong.

The court said all people are equal under the law? Then why do we have affirmative action.? THINK

The court said that all people should be treated equally under the law. Not that they are treated equally.

I need to be able to say things as concisely as you do.

Thanks...It's not easy for me. I tend to be "wordy"