Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[Skylar]

60% of voters here think the Supreme Court is out of line..

That is quite rich considering you were gassing on in another thread about the sample sizes concerning support gay marriage but somehow your poll with a massive 11 participates is important. lol.

Ah, but Silo is the same hapless soul that insisted that Gallup and all other polling agencies showing strong support for gay marriage is making up their polling data.

Shrugs.....you can't fix stupid.

 

[mdk]

60% of voters here think the Supreme Court is out of line..

That is quite rich considering you were gassing on in another thread about the sample sizes concerning support gay marriage but somehow your poll with a massive 11 participates is important. lol.

Ah, but Silo is the same hapless soul that insisted that Gallup and all other polling agencies showing strong support for gay marriage is making up their polling data.

Shrugs.....you can't fix stupid.

No you can't but it can and will be countered every time it is presented.

 

[Silhouette]

I noticed we gave these two posts/points a pass...and buried the page they were on...

Chief justice's lesbian cousin will attend Prop. 8 hearing

SAN FRANCISCO--Jean Podrasky, 48, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, will be at Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 in seating reserved for family members and guests of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr....I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”...Podrasky obtained the highly coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, Peggy Roberts, and then going through his secretary. Roberts knows she is attending, she said...The San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, which has fought for marriage rights, invited Podrasky to do a guest column about being related to the chief justice. The column will be emailed to members Monday.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/24/local/la-me-ln-prop.8-chief-justices-cousin-a-lesbian-will-attend-prop-8-hearing-20130324

Is Anthony Kennedy the first gay justice?

...it was his majority opinion in the DOMA case that could have ripple effects for years to come...."Although Justice Kennedy's opinion explicitly states that it is confined to same-sex marriages that have been recognized by states, it contains reasoning and language that will certainly be used, in later cases, to argue that legal recognition of same-sex marriage by all states is constitutionally required,"..clearly he is the man in the middle, and the man that in many ways shapes the direction of a divided court.. Is Anthony Kennedy the first gay justice - CNN.com

 

[Skylar]

I noticed we gave these two posts/points a pass...and buried the page they were on...

The Robert's post was addressed. You just ignored it. And then unsurprisingly spammed the same shit again.

In cased you missed it the first time, here's the reply you're ignoring:

Who says Roberts had to 'choose his words very carefully'?

You know you're literally just making this shit up as you go along, right?

And on the same vein, who said that Robert's was 'pressured' into anything? You seem to have finally realized that you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about regarding the Windsor ruling. Now instead of acknowledging your comic blunder, you keep trying to portray the court as wrong, corrupt, treasonous, etc.

Nope. You're just clueless.

Is Anthony Kennedy 'the first gay justice'?.. ..it was his majority opinion in the DOMA case that could have ripple effects for years to come...."Although Justice Kennedy's opinion explicitly states that it is confined to same-sex marriages that have been recognized by states, it contains reasoning and language that will certainly be used, in later cases, to argue that legal recognition of same-sex marriage by all states is constitutionally required,"..clearly he is the man in the middle, and the man that in many ways shapes the direction of a divided court.. Is Anthony Kennedy the first gay justice - CNN.com

Scalia told you 2 years ago what the Windsor decision meant. You simply ignored Scalia and pretended you knew better.

You didn't. And still don't.

 

[Silhouette]

Scalia told you 2 years ago what the Windsor decision meant. You simply ignored Scalia and pretended you knew better.

You didn't. And still don't.

Scalia signed onto Thomas' scathing dissent in the denial of the stay for Alabama. They basically called their colleagues traitors in that dissent for denying state interim law with "unexplained stays" with no merits to justify overturning the status quo preserved in Windsor.

That JUST happened a couple of weeks ago, not 2 years ago. It turns out that timing is everything here.

 

[Skylar]

Scalia told you 2 years ago what the Windsor decision meant. You simply ignored Scalia and pretended you knew better.

You didn't. And still don't.

Scalia signed onto Thomas' scathing dissent in the denial of the stay for Alabama. They basically called their colleagues traitors in that dissent for denying state interim law with "unexplained stays" with no merits to justify overturning the status quo preserved in Windsor.

That JUST happened a couple of weeks ago, not 2 years ago. It turns out that timing is everything here.

Scalia told you, straight out, that the Windsor court made its take of state gay marriage bans known 'beyond mistaking'. And said the overturning of such bans using the rationale of Windsor was 'inevitable'.

You didn't believe him. You insisted that the Windsor ruling supported gay marriage bans (despite it overturning gay marriage bans). You insisted that the court supported the States' banning of gay marriage, despite it ever so much as mentioning them.

You were wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.

But you don't admit you were wrong. Instead of acknowledging that you didn't have the slighest clue what you were talking about (and still don't), you're working yourself up into a frothing lather. Babbling about 'treason', and how the supreme court has 'violated the constitution' and start making up fantasies about how justices have been 'pressured'.

Nope. You're just don't know what you're talking about. And building this elaborate personal mythology to balm the cognitive dissonance when the justices don't act in a manner consistent with your opposition to gay marriage doesn't actually affect anyone but you. None of us give a shit what lies your tell yourself. And the courts don't know you exist.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

C'mon Skylar...what was the most recent thing that Scalia said about all this? Remember the quote from the OP?

..yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities...Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.... In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months....I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.

Read the OP link and find how Scalia backed Thomas on this....what...5 or so weeks ago? What a person says 2 years prior is nullified by his opposite stance 5 weeks ago.

What is emphatically-clear from all this is that if any of the heavily biased Justices on this question had in mind using the excuse "well, so many people are now gay married we have to mandate this across the 50 states", they will be impeachable because they will have caused that actively and against interim law.

They are usuing shadow-justice denying stays...KNOWING the effect will be an increase in numbers of contested "marriages". In other words, they are actively loading the dice in favor of gay litigants and against state powers to say yes or no to them before any hearing on if lifestyles have a constitutional protection to preside as "married parents" to the most important people under a state's protection: children...who, by the way, cannot vote to affect their fate.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

 

[Silhouette]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Any Hearing on this contested issue "states rights to protect children vs the homosexual lifestyle gaining a new Constitutional protection" will be a kangaroo court at this point. Facilitated directly by those sitting on The Bench.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Our system of government is what has finally come upon the brilliant realization that fags have rights too. The system is working, not broken as you wrongly believe.

 

[Silhouette]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Our system of government is what has finally come upon the brilliant realization that fags have rights too. The system is working, not broken as you wrongly believe.

I wasn't aware that lifestyles that affect the base definition of marriage to the detriment of children and states' rights to self-govern in order to protect children (the most important people in marriage) had already been determined? Can you point me to case law?

Otherwise we assume the Court must Hear BOTH sides of the debate and not instead engage in the direct facilitation of the erosion of state laws so they can come back and say "well, so many people are gay married now that we just have to go ahead and mandate this federally"...without considering the following...

Remember the quote from the OP?

..yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities...Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.... In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months....I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.

Read the OP link and find how Scalia backed Thomas on this....what...5 or so weeks ago? What a person says 2 years prior is nullified by his opposite stance 5 weeks ago.

What is emphatically-clear from all this is that if any of the heavily biased Justices on this question had in mind using the excuse "well, so many people are now gay married we have to mandate this across the 50 states", they will be impeachable because they will have caused that actively and against interim law.

They are usuing shadow-justice denying stays...KNOWING the effect will be an increase in numbers of contested "marriages". In other words, they are actively loading the dice in favor of gay litigants and against state powers to say yes or no to them before any hearing on if lifestyles have a constitutional protection to preside as "married parents" to the most important people under a state's protection: children...who, by the way, cannot vote to affect their fate.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Our system of government is what has finally come upon the brilliant realization that fags have rights too. The system is working, not broken as you wrongly believe.

I wasn't aware that lifestyles that affect the base definition of marriage to the detriment of children and states' rights to self-govern in order to protect children (the most important people in marriage) had already been determined? Can you point me to case law?

Otherwise we assume the Court must Hear BOTH sides of the debate and not instead engage in the direct facilitation of the erosion of state laws so they can come back and say "well, so many people are gay married now that we just have to go ahead and mandate this federally"...without considering the following...

Remember the quote from the OP?

..yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities...Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.... In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months....I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.

Read the OP link and find how Scalia backed Thomas on this....what...5 or so weeks ago? What a person says 2 years prior is nullified by his opposite stance 5 weeks ago.

What is emphatically-clear from all this is that if any of the heavily biased Justices on this question had in mind using the excuse "well, so many people are now gay married we have to mandate this across the 50 states", they will be impeachable because they will have caused that actively and against interim law.

They are usuing shadow-justice denying stays...KNOWING the effect will be an increase in numbers of contested "marriages". In other words, they are actively loading the dice in favor of gay litigants and against state powers to say yes or no to them before any hearing on if lifestyles have a constitutional protection to preside as "married parents" to the most important people under a state's protection: children...who, by the way, cannot vote to affect their fate.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Give it up Sweetheart. It's over and you lost. Stop beating you head against the wall, it just makes you that much more stupid.

 

[Silhouette]

Why would you be here posting that I'm right about everything I'm saying? It seems odd and out of character for you Paint..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why would you be here posting that I'm right about everything I'm saying? It seems odd and out of character for you Paint..

On this issue, you aren't right about anything, and you've lost so what minority are you going to rant about next, the Jews?

 

[Silhouette]

Why would you be here posting that I'm right about everything I'm saying? It seems odd and out of character for you Paint..

On this issue, you aren't right about anything, and you've lost so what minority are you going to rant about next, the Jews?

How can you say at the same time that a Decision by the US Supreme Court is "indicating it is already in the bag for federally-mandated "gay marriage" and then slam me for "being wrong about the US Supreme Court indicating that the Decision is already in the bag for federally-mandated "gay marriage"?

You are underscoring my points.

(below) Again! vv You cannot stop yourself!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why would you be here posting that I'm right about everything I'm saying? It seems odd and out of character for you Paint..

On this issue, you aren't right about anything, and you've lost so what minority are you going to rant about next, the Jews?

How can you say at the same time that a Decision by the US Supreme Court is "indicating it is already in the bag for federally-mandated "gay marriage" and then slam me for "being wrong about the US Supreme Court indicating that the Decision is already in the bag for federally-mandated "gay marriage"?

You are underscoring my points.

I have no idea who you are talking about, but it isn't me, and gay marriage is a done deal. You lost, get over it.

 

[Skylar]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Our system of government is what has finally come upon the brilliant realization that fags have rights too. The system is working, not broken as you wrongly believe.

I wasn't aware that lifestyles that affect the base definition of marriage to the detriment of children and states' rights to self-govern in order to protect children (the most important people in marriage) had already been determined? Can you point me to case law?

I wasn't aware that the courts had ever found any of your assumptions above to be valid. Could you show me the caselaw?

Because I can show you court rulings where the denial of gay marriage hurts children (Windsor v. US). And where the rights of gays and lesbians are protected by the constitution (Romer v. Evans).

If the courts have already found that denying gay marriage to same sex parents hurts their children, wouldn't that be more relevant to their decision than your imagination? If not, why not?


We both know you'll ignore the question and the answer....as this isn't about what the court is likely to do or why. This is you once again trying to build up in your mind that you know better than the court.

And you don't.

Otherwise we assume the Court must Hear BOTH sides of the debate and not instead engage in the direct facilitation of the erosion of state laws so they can come back and say "well, so many people are gay married now that we just have to go ahead and mandate this federally"...without considering the following...

The courts are required to determine the likelihood of success of a given legal argument when determining if a stay is appropriate. You insist the court can never do this. Yet in every instance of every stay, the courts must. And the clearly found no credible evidence of success for Alabama's argument in defense of gay marriage bans.

Thus, they had no credible reason to grant the stay.

 

[Silhouette]

I wasn't aware that the courts had ever found any of your assumptions above to be valid. Could you show me the caselaw?

Because I can show you court rulings where the denial of gay marriage hurts children (Windsor v. US). And where the rights of gays and lesbians are protected by the constitution (Romer v. Evans)....Thus, they had no credible reason to grant the stay.

There was zero findings of merit that denial of gay marraige hurts children. Zero. If there was, the opposition would have been able to present the rebutting evidence of the Prince's Trust survey. Rights of polygamists are also protected, inasfar as they may be. But that does not extend to marriage, which is a state incentivized privelege for the best benefit of the formative environment for children: the most important people in the marriage debate. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You know It's funny, every time I say that children are the most important voice in the marriage debate, especially when we're talking about the Prince's Trust study, then suddenly your side of the debate screams foul and swears that the most important people in the debate are gay adults.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You know It's funny, every time I say that children are the most important voice in the marriage debate, especially when we're talking about the Prince's Trust study, then suddenly your side of the debate screams foul and swears that the most important people in the debate are gay adults.

That's only because that happens to be true. Marriage isn't for or about children. Never has been.

 

[Skylar]

I wasn't aware that the courts had ever found any of your assumptions above to be valid. Could you show me the caselaw?

Because I can show you court rulings where the denial of gay marriage hurts children (Windsor v. US). And where the rights of gays and lesbians are protected by the constitution (Romer v. Evans)....Thus, they had no credible reason to grant the stay.

There was zero findings of merit that denial of gay marraige hurts children. Zero.

Says you. This is what the Windsor ruling finds:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

You can pretend that no such passages exist. But the Windsor ruling doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument. So where did the court find that gay marriage hurts children? Show us the caselaw.

If there was, the opposition would have been able to present the rebutting evidence of the Prince's Trust survey.

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions same sex marriage or same sex parents, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Eliminating it as relevant to any case involving gay marriage and children.

Second, the Prince Trust Study isn't cited by anyone in any case before the Supreme Court, nor is the basis of any case law. And your standard is case law.

Show us the case law that determines that gay marriage hurts children. Or admit it doesn't exist. We both already know the answer. But its fun to point out how you're more than willing to wipe your ass with your own standards.