Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the constitution.

You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.

OMG, you're stupid.

No you just have a problem comprehending common sense. Something I notice you lack. dumb ass. But you are after all a dumb ass obama supporter I guess when you registered to vote you lost any common sense you had.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote. It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!

When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further **** up the system!

Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote! PLEASE!

Dude you dumb ass 2012 and obama's win is the only reason people need to take a test to vote.
You would be in trouble like the democratic party.

 

[Czernobog]

You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote. It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!

When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further **** up the system!

Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote! PLEASE!

Dude you dumb ass 2012 and obama's win is the only reason people need to take a test to vote.
You would be in trouble like the democratic party.

Yeah...well, I may have voted for Obama - twice. But, at least I know how our system of government, and politics actually works; which is obviously more than you can say, if you don't know the difference between a State District Court, and a Federal District Court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the constitution.

You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.

You really are an idiot, aren't you? These weren't state courts whose rulings were upheld, you dumbass. They were Federal District Courts. And those courts not only ruled that this wasn't a "State's Power" issue, but that the states overstepped their authority by allowing the bans. You idiots that keep saying that, because it was the "lower court rulings" that the Supreme Court let stand means that the Supreme Court recognized that this was a "State Issue" have obviously not been paying attention, or are completely clueless as to the authority behind Federal District Courts.

Federal judge is not a state judge dumb ass

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote. It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!

When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further **** up the system!

Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote! PLEASE!

Dude you dumb ass 2012 and obama's win is the only reason people need to take a test to vote.
You would be in trouble like the democratic party.

Yeah...well, I may have voted for Obama - twice. But, at least I know how our system of government, and politics actually works; which is obviously more than you can say, if you don't know the difference between a State District Court, and a Federal District Court.

and you are a stupid son of a ***** anything you say is irrelevant.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote. It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!

When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further **** up the system!

Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote! PLEASE!

Dude you dumb ass 2012 and obama's win is the only reason people need to take a test to vote.
You would be in trouble like the democratic party.

Your willingness to humiliate yourself is impressive.

 

[dcraelin]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The lower courts are federal judges

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are the reson, bigrebnc1775 that I am so often tempted to agree that people should have to take a test in order to be allowed to vote. It is not your positions - I think they're idiotic, but you're entitled to your opinions - it is because you prove yourself to be completely clueless about how our legal, and political system works!

When people are this stupid about politics, they have no business being able to vote, because all they do is vote in accordance with the propaganda they hear, and they just manage to further **** up the system!

Please go, and learn a little bit about how our system of government, and law works before you cast another vote! PLEASE!

Dude you dumb ass 2012 and obama's win is the only reason people need to take a test to vote.
You would be in trouble like the democratic party.

Your willingness to humiliate yourself is impressive.

Stop it dumb ass you voted for obama you are an ignorant bastard.

 

[Czernobog]

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the constitution.

You are not talking logically if the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue how can it be one when a federally appointed judge made the ruling? The higher courts should have ruled it's a state issue and let stand what the people had voted on you dumb ass queen.

You really are an idiot, aren't you? These weren't state courts whose rulings were upheld, you dumbass. They were Federal District Courts. And those courts not only ruled that this wasn't a "State's Power" issue, but that the states overstepped their authority by allowing the bans. You idiots that keep saying that, because it was the "lower court rulings" that the Supreme Court let stand means that the Supreme Court recognized that this was a "State Issue" have obviously not been paying attention, or are completely clueless as to the authority behind Federal District Courts.

Federal judge is not a state judge dumb ass

Then, knowing this, and knowing that it was the decision of federal judges that the Supreme Court let stand, why would make such a blatently stupid assertion like "...the higher courts ruled that it is a state issue..." when they obviously did not?

 

[Czernobog]

The lower courts are federal judges

I refer to my previous question...

 

[Czernobog]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The lower courts are federal judges

I refer to my previous question...

LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

Gay marriage is not protected by the constitution if it was the higher court would have ruled that but they sent it back to the lower federally appointed judges judicial activism at it's best.

 

[Czernobog]

The lower courts are federal judges

I refer to my previous question...

LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS

THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.

I asked about your specific claim that the courts ruled that this was a state issue. Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?

As to your claim here. Answer a simple question: Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The lower courts are federal judges

I refer to my previous question...

LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS

THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.

I asked about your specific claim that the courts ruled that this was a state issue. Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?

As to your claim here. Answer a simple question: Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?

**** off I told you exact how it is.

 

[Czernobog]

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

Gay marriage is not protected by the constitution if it was the higher court would have ruled that but they sent it back to the lower federally appointed judges judicial activism at it's best.

Equal protection...

You know what? **** this! If you are going to spew your bullshit is a thread, at least take time to read the thread, first. This stupidity has already been dealt with - three ******* times.

So, all you get is, you're wrong. if you would like to know why you're wrong, go back and read the thread, and pay attention to the last three people who tried to make this argument, and what happened to their attempts.

I am so done answering the same stupid arguments over, and over, just because people are too stupid to read through a thread they are posting to, to see that, "Oh! this argument already failed. Lemme try something different,"

 

[Czernobog]

The lower courts are federal judges

I refer to my previous question...

LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS

THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.

I asked about your specific claim that the courts ruled that this was a state issue. Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?

As to your claim here. Answer a simple question: Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?

**** off I told you exact how it is.

Really?

Okay. Well, since "**** you" is not really a reply that allows for an intelligible response, you are dismissed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You ******* hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

Gay marriage is not protected by the constitution if it was the higher court would have ruled that but they sent it back to the lower federally appointed judges judicial activism at it's best.

Equal protection...

You know what? **** this! If you are going to spew your bullshit is a thread, at least take time to read the thread, first. This stupidity has already been dealt with - three ******* times.

So, all you get is, you're wrong. if you would like to know why you're wrong, go back and read the thread, and pay attention to the last three people who tried to make this argument, and what happened to their attempts.

I am so done answering the same stupid arguments over, and over, just because people are too stupid to read through a thread they are posting to, to see that, "Oh! this argument already failed. Lemme try something different,"

The 14th amendment does not apply to queen marriage if it did the supreme court would have ruled shut the **** up and sit down you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The lower courts are federal judges

I refer to my previous question...

LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS

THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.

I asked about your specific claim that the courts ruled that this was a state issue. Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?

As to your claim here. Answer a simple question: Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?

**** off I told you exact how it is.

Really?

Okay. Well, since "**** you" is not really a reply that allows for an intelligible response, you are dismissed.

I told you that you have a problem with comprehension
I said **** OFF