It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Are you chaffed so you need that Vaseline?

You were mistaken- I will accept that you made a mistake rather than that you were lying when you claimed that 'not ever in the history of man'.

No, I din't make a mistake, I was obviously talking about until "NOW" in this age when suddenly we have to have something we've never needed before... Gay Marriage. You're just too dense and stupid to see context and too bigoted in your views to entertain thoughts outside your viewpoint.

I am glad to quote you again- not my problem you don't have the stones to just admit you made a mistake.

.And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage..

11 years is a considerable length of time for most of us.

You made a mistake.

Of course this whole thread is one big mistake- from the OP on.

 

[Boss]

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

Why would I want such a law?

You said and I quote

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people

And I asked whether you would accept- not whether you would want this law:

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

And I asked you why we would want such a law?

You're asking a stupid hypothetical question also known as a straw man argument. Congress would never entertain such a law because it obviously would require repealing the 1st Amendment... we're not ever going to do that.

But to answer your question anyway... YES! I still think the People should rule Supreme and not only do I think they should, that is MY understanding of the Constitution and our form of government. If the people in 37 states ratified an Amendment to repeal the 1st and outlaw Judaism, that should be law of the land and SCOTUS should uphold it as such. That's never going to happen, not in ten bazillion years. But The People DO have the ultimate authority, not the court and not the government.

 

[Syriusly]

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

Why would I want such a law?

You said and I quote

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people

And I asked whether you would accept- not whether you would want this law:

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

And I asked you why we would want such a law?

You're asking a stupid hypothetical question also known as a straw man argument. Congress would never entertain such a law because it obviously would require repealing the 1st Amendment... we're not ever going to do that.

But to answer your question anyway... YES! I still think the People should rule Supreme and not only do I think they should, that is MY understanding of the Constitution and our form of government. If the people in 37 states ratified an Amendment to repeal the 1st and outlaw Judaism, that should be law of the land and SCOTUS should uphold it as such. That's never going to happen, not in ten bazillion years. But The People DO have the ultimate authority, not the court and not the government.

Okay so we are in agreement.
Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.

 

[Faun]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.
Then find another name to call it.

There is no religious justification behind state marriage.
Then you can call it something else and it shouldn't matter.

It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights.
Then redefine the laws and call it that.

The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.
Well, that's funny because I don't have a church. I know a great deal about Christian religion and I do believe in a Spiritual Creator, but I am a Spiritualist and not a Religionist. The problem I have with all this is, as I have stated countless times, the role of government in dictating what we define as marriage. I am a very 'neutral' party in this but I am most often castigated by the left as being "anti-gay" or whatever. I am opposed to government involvement in the institution of marriage, particularly at the federal level. It's simply not their business and not within their constitutional authority to define marriage for everyone. At best, it is a State issue.... but even there, I don't condone the State telling ME what I can consider to be marriage. Whether gay or traditional. That should be left for ME to decide and if I want to put limitations or conditions on it with like-minded persons in my state, that should be done through the ballot box.

As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.
Twelve years ago, homosexuality was illegal in some states. At the time of the Loving decision, if anyone would have said that it would eventually lead to same-gender marriage, you would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, that is the 'go-to' case for gay marriage. I think it is YOU who lacks basic understanding of how our laws work. You see.... they can change!

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

You remain ******* deranged.

The courts did not legislate morality. In fact, they didn't even legislate. That is a function of the Congress. The court decided a case based on equality demanded by the U.S. Constitution which invalidated laws in 13 states banning same-sex marriage. The other 37 states had already thrown out such bans. You know, what you call in "the hands of the people to decide."

 

[Faun]

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

Why would I want such a law?

You said and I quote

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people

And I asked whether you would accept- not whether you would want this law:

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

And I asked you why we would want such a law?

You're asking a stupid hypothetical question also known as a straw man argument. Congress would never entertain such a law because it obviously would require repealing the 1st Amendment... we're not ever going to do that.

But to answer your question anyway... YES! I still think the People should rule Supreme and not only do I think they should, that is MY understanding of the Constitution and our form of government. If the people in 37 states ratified an Amendment to repeal the 1st and outlaw Judaism, that should be law of the land and SCOTUS should uphold it as such. That's never going to happen, not in ten bazillion years. But The People DO have the ultimate authority, not the court and not the government.

Then we the people could have amended the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. We the people chose not to do that. If anything, given that 3/4ths of the states had already legalized same-sex marriages, had there been a constitutional amendment, it likely would have been to define marriage as being between two consenting people over the age of consent according to each state.

 

[Montrovant]

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Actually, that may not be the case. I have read that there are instances of same sex marriage in the ancient world. Here's a brief article which gives some examples : Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage. I can't speak to the veracity of the history, but it seems at least some historians believe that legal same sex marriages have occurred in the distant past.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.
Then find another name to call it.

There is no religious justification behind state marriage.
Then you can call it something else and it shouldn't matter.

It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights.
Then redefine the laws and call it that.

The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.
Well, that's funny because I don't have a church. I know a great deal about Christian religion and I do believe in a Spiritual Creator, but I am a Spiritualist and not a Religionist. The problem I have with all this is, as I have stated countless times, the role of government in dictating what we define as marriage. I am a very 'neutral' party in this but I am most often castigated by the left as being "anti-gay" or whatever. I am opposed to government involvement in the institution of marriage, particularly at the federal level. It's simply not their business and not within their constitutional authority to define marriage for everyone. At best, it is a State issue.... but even there, I don't condone the State telling ME what I can consider to be marriage. Whether gay or traditional. That should be left for ME to decide and if I want to put limitations or conditions on it with like-minded persons in my state, that should be done through the ballot box.

As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.
Twelve years ago, homosexuality was illegal in some states. At the time of the Loving decision, if anyone would have said that it would eventually lead to same-gender marriage, you would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, that is the 'go-to' case for gay marriage. I think it is YOU who lacks basic understanding of how our laws work. You see.... they can change!

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

You remain ******* deranged.

The courts did not legislate morality. In fact, they didn't even legislate. That is a function of the Congress. The court decided a case based on equality demanded by the U.S. Constitution which invalidated laws in 13 states banning same-sex marriage. The other 37 states had already thrown out such bans. You know, what you call in "the hands of the people to decide."

In most of the 37 states it was federal court rulings that overturned the bans, not the states. It was the hands of a few black robed "people" who decided.

 

[Boss]

Okay so we are in agreement.
Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.

Okay so we are in agreement.
Highly doubtful... unless I had a frontal lobotomy I wasn't aware of.

Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
Yes!

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional. They can only rule on cases brought to the court through the appeals process, where a person's constitutional rights might be violated by the law. This renders that portion of the law invalid until congress fixes the issue which conflicts with someone's constitutional rights.

If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
Again, they don't decide if a law is constitutional. There is a plaintiff who brings a case before the court seeking remedy for a right they claim is infringed. The court decides if their rights are infringed. If so, that part of the law which caused the infringement is void. Congress can act to pass another law which rectifies the injustice.

If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.
True, OR... Congress can act to fix the part of the law which is egregious, OR... SCOTUS can reverse their decision at a later date... but this is rare.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court only has authority to determine if rights are violated by the law in the cases brought before the court. The argument was, is the SCOTUS the "final arbiter" and they are not. The People are the FINAL arbiter. Always.

 

[auditor0007]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.
Then find another name to call it.

There is no religious justification behind state marriage.
Then you can call it something else and it shouldn't matter.

It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights.
Then redefine the laws and call it that.

The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.
Well, that's funny because I don't have a church. I know a great deal about Christian religion and I do believe in a Spiritual Creator, but I am a Spiritualist and not a Religionist. The problem I have with all this is, as I have stated countless times, the role of government in dictating what we define as marriage. I am a very 'neutral' party in this but I am most often castigated by the left as being "anti-gay" or whatever. I am opposed to government involvement in the institution of marriage, particularly at the federal level. It's simply not their business and not within their constitutional authority to define marriage for everyone. At best, it is a State issue.... but even there, I don't condone the State telling ME what I can consider to be marriage. Whether gay or traditional. That should be left for ME to decide and if I want to put limitations or conditions on it with like-minded persons in my state, that should be done through the ballot box.

As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.
Twelve years ago, homosexuality was illegal in some states. At the time of the Loving decision, if anyone would have said that it would eventually lead to same-gender marriage, you would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, that is the 'go-to' case for gay marriage. I think it is YOU who lacks basic understanding of how our laws work. You see.... they can change!

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

Fine, if it will make you happy, from now on we will call state marriage fuckamahoochi. Now all people straight or gay can go to get their fuckamahoochi license and get fuckamahoochied. You will have to ask your church if they will marry you with a fuckamahoochi license. Happy now?

 

[Seawytch]

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

 

[Faun]

Okay so we are in agreement.
Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.

Okay so we are in agreement.
Highly doubtful... unless I had a frontal lobotomy I wasn't aware of.

Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
Yes!

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional. They can only rule on cases brought to the court through the appeals process, where a person's constitutional rights might be violated by the law. This renders that portion of the law invalid until congress fixes the issue which conflicts with someone's constitutional rights.

If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
Again, they don't decide if a law is constitutional. There is a plaintiff who brings a case before the court seeking remedy for a right they claim is infringed. The court decides if their rights are infringed. If so, that part of the law which caused the infringement is void. Congress can act to pass another law which rectifies the injustice.

If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.
True, OR... Congress can act to fix the part of the law which is egregious, OR... SCOTUS can reverse their decision at a later date... but this is rare.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court only has authority to determine if rights are violated by the law in the cases brought before the court. The argument was, is the SCOTUS the "final arbiter" and they are not. The People are the FINAL arbiter. Always.

You are ******* deranged.

Now you're claiming the Supreme Court doesn't decide on the constitutionality of laws while you're describing how they do decide on the constitutionality of laws.

 

[Boss]

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

 

[Boss]

Okay so we are in agreement.
Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.

Okay so we are in agreement.
Highly doubtful... unless I had a frontal lobotomy I wasn't aware of.

Congress(and state legislatures) pass laws- representing the people.
Yes!

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional. They can only rule on cases brought to the court through the appeals process, where a person's constitutional rights might be violated by the law. This renders that portion of the law invalid until congress fixes the issue which conflicts with someone's constitutional rights.

If the Supreme Court decides that a law- such as Virginia's law against mixed race is unconstitutional- such law is void.
Again, they don't decide if a law is constitutional. There is a plaintiff who brings a case before the court seeking remedy for a right they claim is infringed. The court decides if their rights are infringed. If so, that part of the law which caused the infringement is void. Congress can act to pass another law which rectifies the injustice.

If the People decide they disagree with the court- they can change the law- i.e. the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment.
True, OR... Congress can act to fix the part of the law which is egregious, OR... SCOTUS can reverse their decision at a later date... but this is rare.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the People's wishes- when the People's wishes are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court only has authority to determine if rights are violated by the law in the cases brought before the court. The argument was, is the SCOTUS the "final arbiter" and they are not. The People are the FINAL arbiter. Always.

You are ******* deranged.

Now you're claiming the Supreme Court doesn't decide on the constitutionality of laws while you're describing how they do decide on the constitutionality of laws.

They don't decide anything about laws. They decide cases brought before them regarding the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

 

[Montrovant]

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

 

[Boss]

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

 

[Seawytch]

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.

WTF?? Says who?

God

He doesn't make our laws. Not to mention, since when do Christians observe His words? G-d says we must observe the Passover, yet Christians don't.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Still hilarious when nonbelievers try to tell Christians what the Bible says, and fails miserably. I observe Passover as does my Church and many Christians I know. Go smoke your weed witch and leave reality to grownups.

 

[Boss]

The Supreme Court decides whether such laws are constitutional.
False. It is not up to the court to decide whether a law is constitutional.

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh, yes it is up to them. Christ, this is from Scholastic for shit sake...grade school stuff.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.​

Pointing out yet another problem in this country... public "education".

I suppose, if you were trying to explain the role of SCOTUS to a 3rd grader without having to go into more than a few paragraphs of detail, you could say it as they do here, but this is a gross oversimplification and not entirely true.

The Supreme Court Justices don't wake up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and head off to the old grind with their lunch-pail, where they review all the previous days laws passed by Congress, looking for something to strike down! Ooo... look here, a law that's not Constitutional, we must act to strike this down! ...Not how it works!

The role of the court is to hear cases brought before the court. They do not determine "this law is good" or "this law is bad," they only hear the case before them and their ruling is on whether that case has merit. It's possible, with all the laws enacted, for state legislatures, congress or a president to enact a law which inadvertently violates some constitutional right of someone.

If I were to say... It's the job of NFL referees to decide which players are cheaters... that is not entirely true or accurate. In an over-simplified "3rd-grader" sense, that might be a way to describe what they do... but the NFL ref is not specifically charged with making judgmental decisions on the personal character of the players, they only rule on specific plays and whether or not a rule was violated.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases...

Again... I really don't care how many sources you can find this stated, it's not true. "Final" has a specific meaning (like marriage) and can only mean what it means. In this case, it means nothing else comes afterwards, there is no more recourse. Of course, there is always a recourse to actions of the SCOTUS, just as there is recourse to actions of any branch. We are not ruled by 9 supreme judges. We are free people who govern ourselves.

But thanks... Thank you SO much for demonstrating why we need to remove all liberals from politics in America. It 's this kind of dangerous thinking that destroys the integrity of free society. In my opinion, there is no place in government for people who think the SCOTUS is our supreme ruler. And it's amazing how, as the court has become more liberal in it's rulings, this viewpoint is more popular among liberals.

We all can recall the liberal outrage just a short time back when the decision was rendered in Citizen's United. Now... according to the "final arbiter" view, that's all she wrote... the SCOTUS decision is final, there can be no recourse. However, the week following their landmark decision, Harry Reid intimated that he thought Congress could act to render their decision irrelevant. Because, you see, when Liberals don't get the results they want from SCOTUS, they simply try another avenue. As Nancy Pelosi says, they'll climb over the wall, go around the wall, pole vault over or parachute in... they don't let little things like SCOTUS rulings get in their way. But... now that they've stacked the court with liberals, they don't let the Constitution get in the way either... they simply rewrite the parts they don't like.

After the USSC has ruled a law unconstitutional, is there anyone else to turn to to say that law is constitutional? If not, then yes, they are the final judge. Either the law itself must be changed or the constitution added to in order for the law to be constitutional (or the court to reverse its ruling, but that would still leave them as the final judges). Change the law and it is no longer the same law, so the court was, in fact, the final judge of the constitutionality of the law as it was written. Change the constitution and you change what it means for something to be constitutional, so again, the court was the final judge of the constitutionality of the law under the constitution as it stood.

Perhaps the most telling point is that, if a law is changed after being deemed unconstitutional or a constitutional amendment is added, if there is another challenge to the law, it is the USSC that would make the final ruling about it.

None of this is particularly important to the overall discussion, of course.

Again... it gets us into a more philosophical discussion about what we mean when we say something "is constitutional" ...for instance, in 1860, slavery was constitutional. And we can go through a plethora of events... running indigenous people from their rightful tribal lands and putting them on reservations was constitutional. Interning Japanese Americans was Constitutional... Spying on Americans through the Patriot Act... So obviously things can be "constitutional" and still be a flagrant violation of Constitutional rights defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling that some thing "is constitutional" doesn't really mean this will forever be the case, or that it doesn't conflict in some other way with another more fundamental and important right.

Nobody ever said that the constitution can't be amended or that how it's interpreted doesn't change.

You made the idiotic claim that they don't determine the constitutionality of law. That's what they do.

Well it's not an idiotic claim if it's the truth. The law IS constitutional, as a matter of being passed into law by the Congress. The SCOTUS only rules whether or not the constitutional law violated someone's constitutional rights. If they find it did, we refer to the law as "unconstitutional" but that is actually a misnomer. The law can't be unconstitutional because it was passed into law by Congress. The law is invalid if the SCOTUS rules it violated someone's constitutional rights. However, SCOTUS can make a ruling and consequently, violate some other constitutional right. I've presented examples for this. A SCOTUS ruling does not mean that all has been set right with the world and is in accord with the Constitution.

Clearly, when SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property instead of human beings with rights... that violated the hell out of the Constitution. The same with their Korematsu decision upholding the interning of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The same with Plessy v. Ferguson. Such is also the argument with regard to Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS doesn't always "get it right" and their rulings of "constitutionality" are not chiseled in stone.

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

 

[Boss]

Nobody's right is violated by my civil marriage. Denying me that civil marriage, however, did violate my individual rights.

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think that recognition by government of homosexual marriage is a violation of the religious freedom rights of others. I don't think you have the right to codify your sexual behavior through marriage by redefining marriage and I don't think your individual rights are violated because of not permitting you to redefine marriage.

SCOTUS rulings don't change my opinion. They might change what is legally accepted as "constitutional" for now but that can change.