States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[Misty]

I
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

So how do you reconcile that with the constitution quote i just gave that says only congress can write laws. THINK

Because it's a law he personally likes. Therefore it's ok.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

So how do you reconcile that with the constitution quote i just gave that says only congress can write laws. THINK

Because it's a law he personally likes. Therefore it's ok.

SCOTUS did not write a law. They invalidated laws that were deemed unconstitutional thereby setting a binding precedent. Judicial review is an established principle. Yes it is referred to s case law or court made law which occurs when they interpret the meaning of a law (Legislative intent as they did with the ACA) or rule on the constitutionality of a law but it is not the same as creating a law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

HAHAHA. Is that your best shot? Don't forget to tell us the word "is" has many meanings. HAHAHA

If we want equality under the law then we can't have laws that say whites must be denied jobs just because of their skin color.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

SCOTUS did not write a law. They invalidated laws that were deemed unconstitutional thereby setting a binding precedent.

Then they repealed a law and they are not allowed to do that either according to the constitution. The C says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". That means courts cannot write or rewrite or repeal laws.

Naturally courts are free to say that in their opinion, a law is unconstitutional. That is judicial review. But that should not repeal the law. You want a law repealed, go to congress.

 

[whitehall]

If so-called "sanctuary cities" exist to defy federal law regarding immigration why can't governors establish a "sanctuary state" that ignores federal regulations regarding sodomite weddings?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SCOTUS did not write a law. They invalidated laws that were deemed unconstitutional thereby setting a binding precedent.

Then they repealed a law and they are not allowed to do that either according to the constitution. The C says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". That means courts cannot write or rewrite or repeal laws.

Naturally courts are free to say that in their opinion, a law is unconstitutional. That is judicial review. But that should not repeal the law. You want a law repealed, go to congress.

They did not repeal anything, They invalidated state laws as unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. Well within the scope of their powers and responsibilities. Deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If so-called "sanctuary cities" exist to defy federal law regarding immigration why can't governors establish a "sanctuary state" that ignores federal regulations regarding sodomite weddings?

Oh?? Where exactly are those sanctuary cities?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

On the heels of Obergefell.....

Breaking: Marriage Ban Violates Human Rights Of Same-Sex Couples In Italy Rules European Court Breaking Marriage Ban Violates Human Rights Of Same-Sex Couples In Italy Rules European Court - The New Civil Rights Movement

Today's ruling, The Guardian reports, "said gay couples were essentially forced to live double lives in Italy: they could live openly in their relationships, but they did not receive any official recognition of their status as a family."

That will not change with this ruling, which does not legally bind Italy to extend the institution of marriage to same-sex couples.

But it does put pressure on the government of Italy, the only major country in Western Europe that neither affords same-sex couples the right to marry, nor allows them to enter in to civil unions.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If so-called "sanctuary cities" exist to defy federal law regarding immigration why can't governors establish a "sanctuary state" that ignores federal regulations regarding sodomite weddings?

Good point. If states can ignore federal immigration laws, why can't states ignore ALL federal laws?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
They did not repeal anything, They invalidated state laws as unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. Well within the scope of their powers and responsibilities. Deal with it.

HAHAHA. So now invalidating a law is NOT repealing it??!!! HAHA

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[
They did not repeal anything, They invalidated state laws as unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. Well within the scope of their powers and responsibilities. Deal with it.

HAHAHA. So now invalidating a law is NOT repealing it??!!! HAHA

Hey, Now your getting it!! It's over boss. Give it up. Today was the last day that a motion to rehear the case could have been filed and none of the AGs from the 4 Obergefell states had any interest in doing so. Game over.