Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Silhouette]

Polygamy, once the base structure of marriage is federally-dismantled, will absolutely be legal. To not allow anyone in love to marry at that point would be arbitrary discrimination. If man/woman is no longer sacred then neither are the words "one...and ...one".

(James, if you look back at Syriusly's posting history, she ONLY posts one-liners as if thought out but with the sole intent to spam what you just said, that she cannot rebut effectively, into oblivion on a lost page. That is this poster's hallmark. So unless you enjoy her facilitating bumping the thread and its title, you'd do better to just address other posters and ignore her. The prime example is directly below this post vvv)

 

[Syriusly]

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

No.

Well you answered my question concerning polygamists....
In your illogical reasoning, it is OK to discriminate against those whom you choose in that a marriage is defined in your reasoning as between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, yet not between one man and five women, or one woman and five men.
Does this make you a bigot, or a hypocrite who chooses to bring police into the bedroom of polygamists?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

 

[Syriusly]

James, if you look back at Syriusly's posting history, she ONLY posts one-liners as if thought out but with the sole intent to spam

LOL...the spam queen complaining about others spamming.

How deliciously ironic.

 

[James Everett]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power.The legal definition of a marriage within a State is not the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS power to change at will, such would render law ineffective.
Again lets review case law concerning jurisdiction.....
Article I section 8....
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
The central governments jurisdiction is limited to the ten square miles that is the D.C. along with the boundaries of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and needful buildings. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE STATE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES.
"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17 .... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41.
"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.

 

[James Everett]

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

No.

Well you answered my question concerning polygamists....
In your illogical reasoning, it is OK to discriminate against those whom you choose in that a marriage is defined in your reasoning as between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, yet not between one man and five women, or one woman and five men.
Does this make you a bigot, or a hypocrite who chooses to bring police into the bedroom of polygamists?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

You posted in response to my question concerning the right of polygamist to marry, that "NO" they do not have that right.
You need to re-read your answer to my question.

 

[Skylar]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

That is the real issue here...JURISDICTION.

Which is established by the 14th amendment. Every case you've cited is intentionally pre 14th amendment.

Why won't you cite a case regarding jurisdiction AFTER the passage of the 14th in 1868? Because you know that the 14th extended federal authority over the states on the issue of protecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens, and maintaining equal protection under the law for US citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States.

Which you know. You know the 14th extended the Bill of Rights to the States and granted the federal government authority to protect the rights of US citizens from violation by the States. You know the 14th amendment destroys your entire jurisdiction argument.

But you really hope we don't know this. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th amendment disappear. Nor does it make the 3 USSC cases that undeniably establish that the Federal Judiciary has the authority to overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Your own source, the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you three times. So you ignore the Supreme Court, ignore the Constitution, ignore the 14th amendment, and then pretend that because you ignore them, they all lack jurisdiction.

If only reality worked that way.

Alabama, as does any State hold Jurisdiction over matters of true legal terminology within its defined borders such as what is the real and true legal definition of a marriage.

As long as that legal terminology doesn't violate constitutional guarantees. If it does, the federal judiciary can overturn such laws in defense of the constitutional guarantees of US citizens within the State.

As the USSC has done regarding marriage 3 times already. And you insist can never be done.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power.The legal definition of a marriage within a State is not the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS power to change at will, such would render law ineffective.

Says you. Again, your entire argument is based on us accepting YOU as an infallible arbiter of the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. And you've already demonstrated that you're unsuitable for this role by ignoring the 14th amendment entirely....which explicitly grants the federal government the very authority you insist they lack:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From section 1 of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, the federal government has the authority to intercede and overturn such laws.

As they have done 3 times already. You insist that they lack such authority.....and your personal opinion has no legal weight nor authority. The USSC's judgement does.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Polygamy, once the base structure of marriage is federally-dismantled, will absolutely be legal. To not allow anyone in love to marry at that point would be arbitrary discrimination. If man/woman is no longer sacred then neither are the words "one...and ...one".

(James, if you look back at Syriusly's posting history, she ONLY posts one-liners as if thought out but with the sole intent to spam what you just said, that she cannot rebut effectively, into oblivion on a lost page. That is this poster's hallmark. So unless you enjoy her facilitating bumping the thread and its title, you'd do better to just address other posters and ignore her. The prime example is directly below this post vvv)

Slipper slope fallacy.

Next.

 

[Syriusly]

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

No.

Well you answered my question concerning polygamists....
In your illogical reasoning, it is OK to discriminate against those whom you choose in that a marriage is defined in your reasoning as between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, yet not between one man and five women, or one woman and five men.
Does this make you a bigot, or a hypocrite who chooses to bring police into the bedroom of polygamists?

No- it just means you have a reading comprehension problem- since I never said any of what you say I said.

You posted in response to my question concerning the right of polygamist to marry, that "NO" they do not have that right.
You need to re-read your answer to my question.

You either have a reading comprehension problem- or an integrity problem

What you asked:
What of the polygamist, does polygamy now become a legal marriage, since marriage is being re-defined?

What I answered:
No

My answer- as I spelled out before- is absolutely correct- the current court cases have nothing to do with polygamy, and regardless of the decision, it will have no legal impact on whether polygamy is legal marriage or not.

 

[James Everett]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

That is the real issue here...JURISDICTION.

Which is established by the 14th amendment. Every case you've cited is intentionally pre 14th amendment.

Why won't you cite a case regarding jurisdiction AFTER the passage of the 14th in 1868? Because you know that the 14th extended federal authority over the states on the issue of protecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens, and maintaining equal protection under the law for US citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States.

Which you know. You know the 14th extended the Bill of Rights to the States and granted the federal government authority to protect the rights of US citizens from violation by the States. You know the 14th amendment destroys your entire jurisdiction argument.

But you really hope we don't know this. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th amendment disappear. Nor does it make the 3 USSC cases that undeniably establish that the Federal Judiciary has the authority to overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Your own source, the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you three times. So you ignore the Supreme Court, ignore the Constitution, ignore the 14th amendment, and then pretend that because you ignore them, they all lack jurisdiction.

If only reality worked that way.

Alabama, as does any State hold Jurisdiction over matters of true legal terminology within its defined borders such as what is the real and true legal definition of a marriage.

As long as that legal terminology doesn't violate constitutional guarantees. If it does, the federal judiciary can overturn such laws in defense of the constitutional guarantees of US citizens within the State.

As the USSC has done regarding marriage 3 times already. And you insist can never be done.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I do know what I am talking about, it is you along with so many others who simply accept fictional jurisdiction.
You would be of the populace who accepts the fiction that the POTUS somehow has CONstitutional power to decree legislation via "Executive order" when no such power is granted to the POTUS, but is that power granted only to the legislative branch.
You are of the populace that accepts the fiction that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution grants the SCOTUS jurisdiction within a State to render an opinion that a School system must not allow prayer in School or that a State building cannot post the ten commandments based on the fiction of "separation of Church and State". Such authority is only allowd because the people have been rendered ignorant through indoctrination that substitutes for education.
The first amendment reads....
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".....
Now in order for the SCOTUS to render a legitimate opinion on that subject it must have jurisdiction, meaning that there must be a LAW passed by CONGRESS establishing a religion, or a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof, yet NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN PASSED OR EXISTS WHEREIN THE COURT CAN RENDER THE OPINION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THAT NON- EXISTENT LAW. In other words a law must be passed by congressmfor there to be a violation of the First amendment.
Point being, that the majority of the people accept fiction as reality, and in this way we become the subjects of tyranny. As Niccolo Machiavelli stated....
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
You as so many, many others have accepted appearances as though they are realities.

 

[Skylar]

I do know what I am talking about, it is you along with so many others who simply accept fictional jurisdiction.
You would be of the populace who accepts the fiction that the POTUS somehow has CONstitutional power to decree legislation via "Executive order" when no such power is granted to the POTUS, but is that power granted only to the legislative branch.

Nope, you're clueless.

You are still ignoring the 14th amendment, refusing to address it, reference it, or even acknowledge it exists. And its the 14th amendment that extended the bill of rights to the States, the 14th amendemnt that granted the federal government authority to overturn state laws that violated constitutional guarantees, and the 14th amendment that is the basis of virtually every federal court ruling that overturned State gay marriage bans.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States.

And you yet you still refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment even exists. Despite it being core the the entire issue of jurisdiction.

Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th amendment disappear. It only renders your position uselessly ignorant and legally meaningless.

 

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power..

It will be a rendered opinion like every other Supreme Court decision.

And just like every other Supreme Court decision, it will stand.

 

[Syriusly]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

That is the real issue here...JURISDICTION.

Which is established by the 14th amendment. Every case you've cited is intentionally pre 14th amendment.

Why won't you cite a case regarding jurisdiction AFTER the passage of the 14th in 1868? Because you know that the 14th extended federal authority over the states on the issue of protecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens, and maintaining equal protection under the law for US citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States.

Which you know. You know the 14th extended the Bill of Rights to the States and granted the federal government authority to protect the rights of US citizens from violation by the States. You know the 14th amendment destroys your entire jurisdiction argument.

But you really hope we don't know this. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th amendment disappear. Nor does it make the 3 USSC cases that undeniably establish that the Federal Judiciary has the authority to overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Your own source, the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you three times. So you ignore the Supreme Court, ignore the Constitution, ignore the 14th amendment, and then pretend that because you ignore them, they all lack jurisdiction.

If only reality worked that way.

Alabama, as does any State hold Jurisdiction over matters of true legal terminology within its defined borders such as what is the real and true legal definition of a marriage.

As long as that legal terminology doesn't violate constitutional guarantees. If it does, the federal judiciary can overturn such laws in defense of the constitutional guarantees of US citizens within the State.

As the USSC has done regarding marriage 3 times already. And you insist can never be done.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I do know what I am talking about, it is you along with so many others who simply accept fictional jurisdiction.
You would be of the populace who accepts the fiction that the POTUS somehow has CONstitutional power to decree legislation via "Executive order" when no such power is granted to the POTUS, but is that power granted only to the legislative branch.
You are of the populace that accepts the fiction that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution grants the SCOTUS jurisdiction within a State to render an opinion that a School system must not allow prayer in School or that a State building cannot post the ten commandments based on the fiction of "separation of Church and State". Such authority is only allowd because the people have been rendered ignorant through indoctrination that substitutes for education.
The first amendment reads....
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".....
Now in order for the SCOTUS to render a legitimate opinion on that subject it must have jurisdiction, meaning that there must be a LAW passed by CONGRESS establishing a religion, or a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof, yet NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN PASSED OR EXISTS WHEREIN THE COURT CAN RENDER THE OPINION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THAT NON- EXISTENT LAW. In other words a law must be passed by congressmfor there to be a violation of the First amendment.
Point being, that the majority of the people accept fiction as reality, and in this way we become the subjects of tyranny. As Niccolo Machiavelli stated....
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
You as so many, many others have accepted appearances as though they are realities.

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

That is the real issue here...JURISDICTION.

Which is established by the 14th amendment. Every case you've cited is intentionally pre 14th amendment.

Why won't you cite a case regarding jurisdiction AFTER the passage of the 14th in 1868? Because you know that the 14th extended federal authority over the states on the issue of protecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens, and maintaining equal protection under the law for US citizens:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States.

Which you know. You know the 14th extended the Bill of Rights to the States and granted the federal government authority to protect the rights of US citizens from violation by the States. You know the 14th amendment destroys your entire jurisdiction argument.

But you really hope we don't know this. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the 14th amendment disappear. Nor does it make the 3 USSC cases that undeniably establish that the Federal Judiciary has the authority to overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Your own source, the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you three times. So you ignore the Supreme Court, ignore the Constitution, ignore the 14th amendment, and then pretend that because you ignore them, they all lack jurisdiction.

If only reality worked that way.

Alabama, as does any State hold Jurisdiction over matters of true legal terminology within its defined borders such as what is the real and true legal definition of a marriage.

As long as that legal terminology doesn't violate constitutional guarantees. If it does, the federal judiciary can overturn such laws in defense of the constitutional guarantees of US citizens within the State.

As the USSC has done regarding marriage 3 times already. And you insist can never be done.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I do know what I am talking about, it is you along with so many others who simply accept fictional jurisdiction.
You would be of the populace who accepts the fiction that the POTUS somehow has CONstitutional power to decree legislation via "Executive order" when no such power is granted to the POTUS, but is that power granted only to the legislative branch.

Once again- what the hell does Presidential authority have to do with this thread?

 

[Skylar]

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power..

It will be a rendered opinion like every other Supreme Court decision.

And just like every other Supreme Court decision, it will stand.

Exactly. The legitimacy of a USSC ruling isn't based on James' agreement with it. Or mine. Or yours, Sy.

But on the authority to adjudicate issues arise under the constitution granted the federal judiciary by the constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

That no ex post facto law, nor any law, impairing the obligations of contracts, or making any irrevocable or exclusive grants of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed by the legislature; and every grant or franchise, privilege, or immunity shall forever remain subject to revocation, alteration, or amendment.

Article 4, Section 2:
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[James Everett]

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power.The legal definition of a marriage within a State is not the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS power to change at will, such would render law ineffective.

Says you. Again, your entire argument is based on us accepting YOU as an infallible arbiter of the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. And you've already demonstrated that you're unsuitable for this role by ignoring the 14th amendment entirely....which explicitly grants the federal government the very authority you insist they lack:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From section 1 of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, the federal government has the authority to intercede and overturn such laws.

As they have done 3 times already. You insist that they lack such authority.....and your personal opinion has no legal weight nor authority. The USSC's judgement does.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

But the Alabama is not abridging the freedom or immunities of its citizens by refusing to redefine marriage. HErein lies you fiction and misunderstanding of the amendment and the law.
Under your fictional definition of marriage, then a State must allow polygamy to be legal or a Father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister to marry or there be a violation of the Fourteenth.....
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The State of Alabama would ONLY be required to accept a civil union under Your CONstitutions Art. I, Sect. 10, which recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. It does not grant jurisdiction in the redefining of a set legal definition of what a marriage is within a State.

 

[Syriusly]

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power.The legal definition of a marriage within a State is not the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS power to change at will, such would render law ineffective.

Says you. Again, your entire argument is based on us accepting YOU as an infallible arbiter of the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. And you've already demonstrated that you're unsuitable for this role by ignoring the 14th amendment entirely....which explicitly grants the federal government the very authority you insist they lack:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From section 1 of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, the federal government has the authority to intercede and overturn such laws.

As they have done 3 times already. You insist that they lack such authority.....and your personal opinion has no legal weight nor authority. The USSC's judgement does.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

But the Alabama is not abridging the freedom or immunities of its citizens by refusing to redefine marriage. HErein lies you fiction and misunderstanding of the amendment and the law..

That is the legitimate question before the court.

Is Alabama violating the rights of its citizens when it does not allow them to marry?

The court found that yes, Alabama is.

The difference between your opinion and the courts opinion is that the court's opinion is actually legally relevant, while yours is legally irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power.The legal definition of a marriage within a State is not the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS power to change at will, such would render law ineffective.

Says you. Again, your entire argument is based on us accepting YOU as an infallible arbiter of the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. And you've already demonstrated that you're unsuitable for this role by ignoring the 14th amendment entirely....which explicitly grants the federal government the very authority you insist they lack:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From section 1 of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, the federal government has the authority to intercede and overturn such laws.

As they have done 3 times already. You insist that they lack such authority.....and your personal opinion has no legal weight nor authority. The USSC's judgement does.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

But the Alabama is not abridging the freedom or immunities of its citizens by refusing to redefine marriage. HErein lies you fiction and misunderstanding of the amendment and the law.

Says you. The federal courts have almost universally found that they have violated constitutional guarantees.

In a contest of the federal judiciary vs. you on what constitutes a violation of constitutional guarantees, the federal judiciary wins. As the federal judiciary is authoritative, and you're nobody.

And you still won't even acknowledge the 14th amendment exists, will you? Well, you can ignore the 14th amendment and its constitutional guarantees. But you can't make the court ignore them. Which is why your ilk keep losing.

 

[James Everett]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

That no ex post facto law, nor any law, impairing the obligations of contracts, or making any irrevocable or exclusive grants of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed by the legislature; and every grant or franchise, privilege, or immunity shall forever remain subject to revocation, alteration, or amendment.

Article 4, Section 2:
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

'untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have'

Loving v. Virginia established that Federal judges absolutely do have the power to rule that a State marriage law is unconstitutional.

And far from 'untethered'- each judges ruling is subject to appeal to a higher court, leading ultimately to the Supreme Court- which is exactly how our system works.

And don't give me the usual crap about Loving being different- the power the judges are exercising is the exact same power exercised in Loving.

The SCOTUS has rendered many contradictory opinions, as the SCOTUS has become a Kangaroo court of political appointees,.

Not when it comes to jurisdiction over State laws regarding Constitutional protections.

There may be contradictory opinions as to specific laws- but jurisdiction regarding Constitutional questions of State marriage law- there are no contradictions.

Whether or not you believe that the Supreme Court is a 'kangaroo court' is irrelevant- the decision the Court renders- whatever the decision is- will be the final decision on the issue.

The opinion may be rendered by the SCOTUS, however it is only a rendered opinion without power, as the court was granted no enforcement power, that would fall upon those who do hold enforcement power..

It will be a rendered opinion like every other Supreme Court decision.

And just like every other Supreme Court decision, it will stand.

Exactly. The legitimacy of a USSC ruling isn't based on James' agreement with it. Or mine. Or yours, Sy.

But on the authority to adjudicate issues arise under the constitution granted the federal judiciary by the constitution.

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.
Second, the issue is not a constitutional issue wherein the SCOTUS has jurisdiction, The issue is the set legal definition of marriage. The SCOTUS ONLY has jurisdiction in rendering an opinion concerning the right to contract, and what that contract constitutes. While a civil union may constitute the equivalent of a marriage in its legal authority, it does not constitute a marriage under the set legal definition of a marriage.
In other words the court may render an opinion on the contractual rights of individuals, it does not hold the legal CONstitutional authority to change the set legal definition of a marriage within a States retained jurisdiction.

Again read the case law that I have cited previously along with the SCOTUS CONstitutional limitations.....

 

[Skylar]

First, the SCOTUS does not rule, as in making rulings. The SCOTUS renders opinions, a ruling must contain enforcement power to which the SCOTUS was never granted.

Says you. And the authority you insist was never granted is laid out in the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

You simply refuse to acknowledge the 14th amendment exists.

Um, so what?