Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[Bush92]

OP- Fascism is RW, Foxetcbot. You know, messing with minorities and pandering to greedy idiot corporations...and a ton of bs propaganda for the (mainly racist) chumps.

What are you babbling about? I think moderator should torpedo you.

 

[francoHFW]

You wouldn't understand- too brainwashed. lol. Fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS has already order that the above can't happen. Private citizens have no standing. Period.

 

[Silhouette]

OP- Fascism is RW, Foxetcbot. You know, messing with minorities and pandering to greedy idiot corporations...and a ton of bs propaganda for the (mainly racist) chumps.

Anyone who has read my other posts knows you are wrong. I advocate for the shutdown of nuclear power, full-blown green power/reduction of oil and other carbons. I am FOR universal healthcare and FOR a woman's right to choose in very limited circumstances. FOR the morning after pill which doesn't abort any woman because she isn't pregnant yet. FOR turning Dick Cheney over to the Hague. FOR environmental laws to protect our last fresh water reserves from fracking.

And against gay marriage. Naturally. Because it goes against nature and we shouldn't be holding it out to future generations as the lie that it is.

 

[Silhouette]

Liberal's do not understand the concept of "majority rule, minority rights." Instead they "minority rule and everyone else shut-up." Now, before any socialist out there say "What about the right to gay marriage?" No, the majority said marriage is defined as that union between a man and a woman. This in no way stops you from having gay sex. You are simply not going to be rewarded for it.

Well put. Yet in California we see the rights of the initiative system simply dismantled when it comes to gay marriage. Those rogue officials KNOW Prop 8 may quite likely be re-affirmed via its identical siblings at the Highest Level of courts. And so they moved pre-emptively [not coincidentally and immediately following the Hobby Lobby Ruling] to act in contempt of that anticipation and in violation of the civil rights to democracy of the people of their state. They simply said to them with this Bill "**** you, we are suspending your rights to govern yourselves with initiative law in this instance".

It is an act to wilfully entrench the "think of the children" angle for "kids who are already part of gay marriages to feel legitimate". They played this one up big time at the last Hearing on gay marriage Windsor/Prop 8. Only now there is a new reason to think of the children: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

The legislature has every night to eviscerate law that SCOTUS has overruled.

Children of all marriages are legitimate, period.

10th says that SCOTUS had ten days to issue a stay, or marriage equality is a fact in Utah.

The hetero-fascists fail and fail and fail.

 

[Silhouette]

The legislature has every night to eviscerate law that SCOTUS has overruled.

Children of all marriages are legitimate, period.

10th says that SCOTUS had ten days to issue a stay, or marriage equality is a fact in Utah.

The hetero-fascists fail and fail and fail.

SCOTUS NEVER overruled Prop 8. What rogue officials in CA have done is sedition:

Proposition 8: Supreme Court Ruling Explained

June 26, 2013

By ARIANE DE VOGUE, TERRY MORAN and JOSH HAFENBRACK

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 today that bans gay marriage, and instead dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The court held that supporters of the ballot initiative—who stepped in to defend Prop 8 when California officials refused to do so—did not have the legal right to be in court Prop. 8: Supreme Court Ruling Explained - ABC News

They vacated the appeal to overturn gay judge Walker's kangaroo court that forced gay marriage upon that state.

It may interest you to know that SCOTUS is now ordering a rehearing of these types of vacated cases with respect to the new Hobby Lobby Ruling. And of course, CA rogue officials already know this and pre-emptively acted in contempt of SCOTUS and the initiative law system [democracy itself] in CA.

As those rogue officials know, as guaranteed in the CA Constitution, Article 2, Section 10 (c) which says: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.​

There was no permission given within Prop 8 by the CA voters to rogue legislators there to alter or revoke it; and there was no new intiative to repeal it by the voters. And there was no constitutional finding on it either. It is in limbo and may not be gutted until the final Determination is in.

Here is how it was gutted illegally last week by SB 1306: SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California

The part in red above was deleted from family law code without the permission of voters. And it is the heart and essence of Prop 8 which being in the constitution, governs all lower laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only in a weak mind is it sedition.

Here: sedition - conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...5&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sedition definition

Hey, you are engaging in sedition.

 

[Silhouette]

Only in a weak mind is it sedition.

Here: sedition - conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...5&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sedition definition

Hey, you are engaging in sedition.

Reading between the lines, Jake is advocating for "diet fascism". "Just one calorie, not quite the real thing yet".

Sorry, when you go behind the backs of the democratic process and alter laws the governed made for themselves you have committed sedition of the order of our government.

Clear, concise and textbook sedition of the higest order.

 

[Silhouette]

The legislature has every night to eviscerate law that SCOTUS has overruled.

Children of all marriages are legitimate, period.

10th says that SCOTUS had ten days to issue a stay, or marriage equality is a fact in Utah.

The hetero-fascists fail and fail and fail.

Children are legitimate people all right. But the marriages they're forced into may not be.

And your focus on children being legitimate bleeds over into having their civil rights be of paramount concern to the discussion of the environment in which they are raised sanctioned by society as "married".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only in a weak mind is it sedition.

Here: sedition - conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...5&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sedition definition

Hey, you are engaging in sedition.

Reading between the lines, Jake is advocating for "diet fascism". "Just one calorie, not quite the real thing yet".

Sorry, when you go behind the backs of the democratic process and alter laws the governed made for themselves you have committed sedition of the order of our government. Clear, concise and textbook sedition of the higest order.

Yep, that is what you are engaging in, Sil: SCOTUS says no, and that's the way it is. The voters in a state do not decide what is federal, constitutional law and you know it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The legislature has every night to eviscerate law that SCOTUS has overruled.

Children of all marriages are legitimate, period.

10th says that SCOTUS had ten days to issue a stay, or marriage equality is a fact in Utah.

The hetero-fascists fail and fail and fail.

Children are legitimate people all right. But the marriages they're forced into may not be.

And your focus on children being legitimate bleeds over into having their civil rights be of paramount concern to the discussion of the environment in which they are raised sanctioned by society as "married".

The focus of that is for the legislatures, not you. And SCOTUS not you makes those decisions.

Tis what tis.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, that is what you are engaging in, Sil: SCOTUS says no, and that's the way it is. The voters in a state do not decide what is federal, constitutional law and you know it.

Yes but who does has not made that determination yet. It is pending as to Prop 8. Bear in mind that SCOTUS is ordering revisited old vacated appeals per Hobby Lobby. That's their warning to California on SB 1306: back the F off...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, that is what you are engaging in, Sil: SCOTUS says no, and that's the way it is. The voters in a state do not decide what is federal, constitutional law and you know it.

Yes but who does has not made that determination yet. It is pending as to Prop 8. Bear in mind that SCOTUS is ordering revisited old vacated appeals per Hobby Lobby. That's their warning to California on SB 1306: back the F off...

Hobby Lobby is about contraception nothing else.

The 10th has said the Utah has ten days to appeal its latest ruling or the marriage equality finding in Utah goes into effect, pronto.

The only warning to back off is to those who are trying to suggest such rulings as HL mean anything to marriage equality: they don't.

 

[Silhouette]

Hobby Lobby is about contraception nothing else.

The 10th has said the Utah has ten days to appeal its latest ruling or the marriage equality finding in Utah goes into effect, pronto.

The only warning to back off is to those who are trying to suggest such rulings as HL mean anything to marriage equality: they don't.

Well...first Hobby Lobby was about abortion pills. Then contraception as the Court expanded the Ruling. Now they are ordering lower courts to rehear old appeals that were vacated involving business owners not wanting to provide contraception based on faith issues.

Oh...you know it's about more than just birth control which can be gotten easily all over the US. All you have to do is ask a woman's health clinic and no questions asked they'll give it to her.

No, this uproar from the left is not about birth control. It's about something far more worrying to them: basing a decision upon people's 1st Amendment right to refuse to promote some behavior that goes against their core faith values.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting HL is about contraception, not about marriage equality.

Your second paragraph is meaningless to the OP.

No one is forcing you to give up your 1st Amendment right to say "hell no."

The issue is that you can't force someone to not be able to marry the person of their choice.

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you for admitting HL is about contraception, not about marriage equality.

Your second paragraph is meaningless to the OP.

No one is forcing you to give up your 1st Amendment right to say "hell no."

The issue is that you can't force someone to not be able to marry the person of their choice.

That depends on the legal definition of marriage. In California, that legality is in question and has not been decided on a constitutional level. Therefore, the state by law must default to the initiative law on the constitution. Any circumvention of that is sedition of the power of the voters [democracy].

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting HL is about contraception, not about marriage equality.

Your second paragraph is meaningless to the OP.

No one is forcing you to give up your 1st Amendment right to say "hell no."

The issue is that you can't force someone to not be able to marry the person of their choice.

That depends on the legal definition of marriage. In California, that legality is in question and has not been decided on a constitutional level. Therefore, the state by law must default to the initiative law on the constitution. Any circumvention of that is sedition of the power of the voters [democracy].

Your legal interp is specious, as you well know.

Your attempt to interfere with legitimate court and legislative action is seditious.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, the identical laws to Prop 8 in other states are being appealed for SCOTUS to touch back on Windsor and visit the 14th for a Final Proclamation on the validity or nonvalidity of them weighed against the constitution.

Sorry, but the federal judiciary has ruled on the issue. And the USSC declined to overrule it. Meaning, like it or not, we have a standing federal ruling that is authorative on Prop 8. There are no appeals. There are no higher courts to rule on it.

You're basing your entire argument on hypothetical *future* cases that may or may not say what you like. And then ludicriously insisting that if CA doesn't follow a hypothetical ruling that doesn't exist that they're commiting 'sedition'.

You might as well call their actions 'Giggling Marmalade Thursday' for as much relevance as their actions have to sedition. You're just tossing the term out as a melodramatic pejorative. And your usage has nothing to do with our laws or the facts surrounding the case.

The fact is, its illegal to implement any portion of Prop 8 in California. And Prop 8 has been adjudicated fully. There is no appeal left standing, no court that didn't have an opportunity to hear the case. And the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution belongs to the Federal Judiciary.

The Federal Judiciary has ruled, finding the Prop 8 unconstitutional.

If the Court allows that states have the right to define which behaviors may marry and which cannot, Prop 8 goes from limbo to law again.

Unless it doesn't. That's the part that you're not getting. The ruling that you're speaking of doesn't actually exist. How then is it 'sedition' to not abide a non-existent imaginary ruling?

Obviously it isn't. A ruling that has never been issued has no binding precedent. Its impossible to violate. A ruling that has been issued carries with it the force of law. And the federal judiciary has ruled on Prop 8: its unconstitutional. A ruling the USSC let stand.

Which means it carries the force of law in California.

You can imagine any future ruling you like. But your imagination carries with it no force of law, defines no legal terms, nor creates any binding precedent. Nor obligation by anyone to do anything. Freeing the CA legislature to act within their lawful authority in any manner they see fit.

But while it is in limbo [by virtue of its identical syblings on the way to the Highest Review], it cannot be revoked or altered in any manifestation of law within CA's code system without the voters weighing in and allowing it.

Prop 8 isn't in any legal limbo. Its been ruled upon. Its fully adjudicated at the State level. Its been fully adjudicated at the federal level. There was a trial held and everything. And the findings of the federal judiciary is Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Even the USSC had their shot at the Proposition. And the let the lower court ruling stand.

There are no appeals for Prop 8. There is no higher court to hear it. Its constitutionality is legally resolved: its not constitutional.

Thus, what actions taken by the CA legislature violate *any* law? The CA legislature is within its power to write law. And the CA legislature is within its power to remove law has been found to be unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.....with the approval of the governor.

I've asked this question repeatedly, and you've never been able to answer: What power is being exercised by the CA legislature on this issue that it *doesn't* have?

None. It has every power to do exactly what its doing. Better yet, its actions are in accordance with the ruling of the federal judiciary on the matter. Not some imaginary future ruling that may or may not actually exist.

But the *actual* ruling of the federal judiciary in which Prop 8 was found unconstitutional. The one that binds California today and makes it illegal to implement any portion, any definition, any part of Prop 8 in the State of California.

Its not sedition to follow the law. Its not fascism to follow the law. Its not any of the other over the top melodramatic labels you've applied either.

And the CA legislatures are following the law, exercising their lawful authority in accordance with the ruling of the federal judiciary.

And of course that revocation/alteration has already been done without the voters' permission while it still lingers in limbo. And that is sedition.

Laughing....no it isn't. Prop 8 has already been found to be unconstitutional. The ruling that you insist that the CA legislature abide...

.....does not exist. And imaginary rulings have no legal weight.

Even on moral grounds, your argument falls flat. Is there any doubt in your mind that if CA voters were asked to vote today on the legality of gay marriage, they would overwhelming affirm its legality? Of course not. The support in CA today is ridiculously high.

If an imaginary ruling that may or may not ever happen supposedly carries weight, then surely an imaginary vote that may or may not ever happen carries at least as much. Yet you attribute hypothetical authority only to one side of the issue. Where by any rational standard, it would apply to both....or neither.

I and our system of law recognize neither. As only rulings and votes that have actually exist carry with them any legal weight. Imaginary hypothetical rulings and votes, don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no legal limbo on Prop 8.

It's dead legally, and the lege has every legal right to gut the language.

Kinda like execution: sedative agent, paralyzer agent, burn vein agent: so that the patient can never revive.

Prop 8 is dead.