Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[beagle9]

They can try, but it gets overturned. See Heller.

Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.

You are the one confused, son, not the judges.

They have the power of judicial review, you don't.

Aren't you glad ? LOL

 

[dcraelin]

Judges striking down anti gay laws are following the Constitution. There is no "activism".

Are judges following the constitution when they are having to force the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ? I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?

No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts’ authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.

When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant – neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!! Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.

You are the one confused, son, not the judges.

They have the power of judicial review, you don't.

Aren't you glad ? LOL

I have been pissed off at several decisions in the last few years, for sure. But somebody has to do it, and thank heavens it is not you or me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!! Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[dcraelin]

It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!! Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!! Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

 

[beagle9]

Are judges following the constitution when they are having to force the majority of the electorate to agree to something in which they don't want to agree with on some of the issues state by state by state ? Is that what the constitution suggest to this nation now, otherwise that if people bring issues, and they can somehow link them to other issues, then the judges must follow this linking no matter what ? I'm just asking, because I believe all of this is new these days am I right ?

No, there is nothing new about the doctrine of judicial review and the courts’ authority to invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution; this doctrine predates the founding of the Republic, it was practiced in Colonial America and is part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back centuries before then.

When the people err and enact an un-Constitutional measure, it is both the duty and responsibility of the Federal courts to invalidate that measure in accordance with the Constitution and its case law. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Gay Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where their jurisdiction of residence is irrelevant – neither the states nor the people who reside in those states have the authority to deny an American citizen his civil liberties, civil liberties that are protected by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!! Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.

Makes sense to me.. I think that is what Obama and the dems have found out, which is if you break the will of the people, and even use judges in doing so, then you pretty much make the constitution null and void. So you make a good point..

 

[Yurt]

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

**** off troll...you said "remove"...they certainly can remove rights and then it is up to scotus to determine if the state acted properly or not. so yes, i am once again telling the truth and you act like a petulant child. scotus has yet to rule that gay marriage among the states is a civil right....so who is lying jake?

not me....

 

[Yurt]

The electorate cannot remove civil rights, beagle9.

yes they can



see prop 8

They can try, but it gets overturned. See Heller.

of course, that is why i like our three branches of government. if a state removes a right, which jake claimed they could not, then scotus can overrule the state. but scotus will not do so unless someone brings a claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

**** off troll...you said "remove"...they certainly can remove rights and then it is up to scotus to determine if the state acted properly or not. so yes, i am once again telling the truth and you act like a petulant child. scotus has yet to rule that gay marriage among the states is a civil right....so who is lying jake? not me....

I won't play semantics with you, because you are wrong as usual. You cannot stand being rightfully corrected. Our civil rights always remain, if not honored because of state tyranny. SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying.

 

[beagle9]

It was not practiced in colonial America because colonial America did not have a Constitution!!! Just read a snippet of a book that said it was specifically prohibited in some state's Constitutions after the revolution.

The Constitution only has validity if it represents the will of the people.

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Could that very same "WE THE PEOPLE", mean we the united or we as a majority who think alike , and this - in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty , to ourselves and our Posterity, do (AS IN WE DO) ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ?

Now who is allowing the constitution to be ruled by a minority view on some matters of indifference now, and for whom are now being found in those who are twisting it inside out in order to run rough shod over the good people in America ? I wonder hmmmm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9, you can interpret the Constitution all you want and opine about all you want. What a great country.

But SCOTUS is the group that counts in the long run, not an ever decreasing minority to the far right.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9, you can interpret the Constitution all you want and opine about all you want. What a great country.

But SCOTUS is the group that counts in the long run, not an ever decreasing minority to the far right.

The changing of the guard so to speak within this nation, well umm it can either be a good thing or a bad thing at times in many cases, so what has the track record been since the slipping of one in respect for the other as you say ? If one is on the wrong side of history, then look out, because history has a way of swinging back around to bite once again. I think people are pushing many things to the limit these days, so we will see how long it all last afterwards.

 

[Yurt]

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

**** off troll...you said "remove"...they certainly can remove rights and then it is up to scotus to determine if the state acted properly or not. so yes, i am once again telling the truth and you act like a petulant child. scotus has yet to rule that gay marriage among the states is a civil right....so who is lying jake? not me....

I won't play semantics with you, because you are wrong as usual. You cannot stand being rightfully corrected. Our civil rights always remain, if not honored because of state tyranny. SCOTUS has made it quite clear that states can legislate marriage as long as it does not violate the Constitution. Quit your lying.

cite where scotus has said that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. you claimed it, now cite it.

what happened here, is that you were wrong after calling me a liar, instead of just admitting it, you now move the goal posts. FACT: the electorate can take away civil rights....those rights do not come back UNLESS scotus says the do. it is not semantics at all, it is our system of government. think about it...states violate civil rights all the time, you claim they can't (using jakey's logic he is a liar), but they do. and guess what, you have to go to court for redress. think 1983 actions you dimwitted troll.

and you claim i'm lying because you simply aren't smart enough to understand what is being discussed. so you throw out your petulant....YOU ARE A LIAR

get a new schtick troll

 

[Silhouette]

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

not sure what your getting at here other than you know the opening lines of the constitution, which is better than the idiotic federal judge from Virginia who recently confused it with declaration, and probably typifies the average hack federal judge.

Is that the best you can do? The will of the people is the spirit of the Constitution. I agree that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and the federal judge should all know their American history better than they do.

You're an attorney I presume? And you've been doing a very good job I notice skirting around the observations that LGBT are behaviors and not an innate race of people.

You know there is mountains of evidence to support this. I've supplied quotes and links from the Mayo Clinic and the CDC's report in the Clinical Psychiatrist's Journal. Also a link to the compilation of over 300 studies showing that sexual behavior is conditioned after birth, at a time close to puberty from Quebec Canada's neurobiological specialists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yes they can



see prop 8

They can try, but it gets overturned. See Heller.

Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.

Actually not.

There’s nothing ‘confusing’ about the issue or law involved.

In all the cases concerning gay Americans’ right to access marriage law – California, Utah, Oklahoma, and now Virginia – the Federal courts have consistently applied 14th Amendment equal protection jurisprudence; in each one of these cases the laws violating the civil liberties of gay Americans were invalidated in accordance with that law.

 

[Seawytch]

They can try, but it gets overturned. See Heller.

Now see how it all gets going when the federal judges dabble in things that are so confusing even for them ? I mean see this case, and then see that case, then it's refer to this one or refer to that one.. It's enough to make peoples heads spin round and round on their shoulders anymore, but that is the thinking I guess. Otherwise cast as much confusion as possible, then no one knows which way is up or which was is down anymore. It has seemingly worked in a lot of ways too. Carry On.

Actually not.

There’s nothing ‘confusing’ about the issue or law involved.

In all the cases concerning gay Americans’ right to access marriage law – California, Utah, Oklahoma, and now Virginia – the Federal courts have consistently applied 14th Amendment equal protection jurisprudence; in each one of these cases the laws violating the civil liberties of gay Americans were invalidated in accordance with that law.

Since DOMA, 5 courts have sided with equality. Guess how many sided against?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since DOMA, 5 courts have sided with equality. Guess how many sided against?

What are the other two again? Utah, Oklahoma, Virginian, and...?

I forget.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Since DOMA, 5 courts have sided with equality. Guess how many sided against?

What are the other two again? Utah, Oklahoma, Virginian, and...?



I forget.





>>>>

Utah: In the first of the five decisions siding with marriage equality, Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages, holding that “[t]he Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government.” He dismissed the suggestion that states rights can somehow trump these fundamental rights — “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict.”

Oklahoma: Less than a month after the Utah decision, Judge Terence Kern sided with marriage equality in Oklahoma. “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed,” Kern wrote, “It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”

Ohio: An Ohio case that began with a man in the terminal stages of Lou Gehrig’s disease who wants to die knowing that his own death certificate will list his husband as his “surviving spouse,” led to Judge Timothy Black holding that Ohio may not discriminate against same-sex couples who legally marry in another state, at least with respect to death certificates. Although Judge Black’s opinion is fairly narrow in scope, his opinion strongly hints at broader implications — “once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Kentucky: On Wednesday, Judge John G. Heyburn held that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Notably, Judge Heyburn is a George H.W. Bush appointee who once served as Special Counsel to future Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Virginia: Finally, Judge Arenda Wright Allen wrote the most recent marriage equality decision — “We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.

In addition to these five federal court decisions, state courts in New Mexico and New Jersey also sided with marriage equality post-Windsor.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ded-marriage-equality-0-sided-discrimination/

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9, you can interpret the Constitution all you want and opine about all you want. What a great country.

But SCOTUS is the group that counts in the long run, not an ever decreasing minority to the far right.

The changing of the guard so to speak within this nation, well umm it can either be a good thing or a bad thing at times in many cases, so what has the track record been since the slipping of one in respect for the other as you say ? If one is on the wrong side of history, then look out, because history has a way of swinging back around to bite once again. I think people are pushing many things to the limit these days, so we will see how long it all last afterwards.

Your deflection is noted.

The power is SCOTUS not your opinion.