Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown
Non-profit organization Planting Peace just erected the above billboard in Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky. The message is plain and simple -- if Davis is going to use Biblical rhetoric to justify her opposition to same-sex marriage, she might want to take a closer look at how else marriage has been redefined in relation to the book's sacred teachings.Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown


"The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.

 

[Seawytch]

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

Well golly...if I'd realized you were starting from a ludicrous premise, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding.

Fanfic is for a different board.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

"The Casey decision again confirmed

[574]

that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision inBowers would deny them this right."

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t

Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.

hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......

Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless

this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......

A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.

Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.

The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.

Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.

of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.

You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.

Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.

Once again, you're simply wrong.

 

[dcraelin]

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

"The Casey decision again confirmed

[574]

that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision inBowers would deny them this right."

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US.

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t

Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.

hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......

Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless

this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......

A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.

Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.

The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.

Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.

of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.

You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.

Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.

Once again, you're simply wrong.

Got to hand it to you...you keep coming up with more verbose ways to say the same damn thing you've said before.

 

[Skylar]

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t

Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.

hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......

Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless

this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......

A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.

Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.

The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.

Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.

of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.

You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.

Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.

Once again, you're simply wrong.

Got to hand it to you...you keep coming up with more verbose ways to say the same damn thing you've said before.

And you can't refute or even address the points I've made. You and I aren't using the same standards. I'm using caselaw as evidence. You're using your belief as evidence. I don't accept your belief as having any particular relevance. You ignore any case that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

So we're at an impasse. There's no case or citation I can present you with that you won't ignore. As your sole basis of credibility and validity is that a case agree with you.

 

[Silhouette]

Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown
Non-profit organization Planting Peace just erected the above billboard in Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky. The message is plain and simple -- if Davis is going to use Biblical rhetoric to justify her opposition to same-sex marriage, she might want to take a closer look at how else marriage has been redefined in relation to the book's sacred teachings.Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown


"The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.

The tit for tat will boil down to extreme violations of faith. There isn't a mandate in the Bible's New Testament that says "Thou shalt sell thy daughter for three goats and a cow or you will go to hell for eternity." There is however a mandate in the Bible's New Testament of Jesus that says "Thou shalt NOT abet the spread of homosexuality throughout any culture, under pains of eternal soul death in the pit of fire" [paraphrased].

The intensity of the sin and the gravity of the punishment will weigh heavily in this question. For Kim Davis to assist "gay marriages" is a mortal sin, the gravest and most dire of all.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown
Non-profit organization Planting Peace just erected the above billboard in Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky. The message is plain and simple -- if Davis is going to use Biblical rhetoric to justify her opposition to same-sex marriage, she might want to take a closer look at how else marriage has been redefined in relation to the book's sacred teachings.Kim Davis Is About To Get A BIG Surprise In Her Hometown


"The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.

The tit for tat will boil down to extreme violations of faith. There isn't a mandate in the Bible's New Testament that says "Thou shalt sell thy daughter for three goats and a cow or you will go to hell for eternity." There is however a mandate in the Bible's New Testament of Jesus that says "Thou shalt NOT abet the spread of homosexuality throughout any culture, under pains of eternal soul death in the pit of fire" [paraphrased].

The intensity of the sin and the gravity of the punishment will weigh heavily in this question. For Kim Davis to assist "gay marriages" is a mortal sin, the gravest and most dire of all.

I think that god is telling Kim that she is needed to spread the gospel in Nigeria.....

 

[dcraelin]

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t

Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.

hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......

Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless

this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......

A belief isn't a legal argument. That you don't like the opening quote of a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling magically disappears. Especially when you're dealing with the the findings made by the lower courts. As they don't know which binding precedent rulings you've arbitrarily decided should never be followed, nor care.

Thus to declare that a lower court was 'wrong' because they cited a ruling that you don't like....has no relevance to a discussion of the law. Nor is it a rational argument.

The evidence of a legal argument is caselaw. Your approach would be the equivilant of deciding that you don't like several letters in the English language. Thus any ruling that uses words with those letters is 'invalid'.

Um, no. Such arbitrary declarations aren't any rational basis of validity.

of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.

You said that Kagan and Ginsberg telegraphed that they didn't care what the law said.

Which is obvious nonsense. Their actions were in perfect accordance with both existing caselaw (Windsor) and local laws. Acting in perfect accordance with both caselaw and local laws doesn't 'telegraph that you didn't care what the law said'.

Once again, you're simply wrong.

Got to hand it to you...you keep coming up with more verbose ways to say the same damn thing you've said before.

And you can't refute or even address the points I've made. You and I aren't using the same standards. I'm using caselaw as evidence. You're using your belief as evidence. I don't accept your belief as having any particular relevance. You ignore any case that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

So we're at an impasse. There's no case or citation I can present you with that you won't ignore. As your sole basis of credibility and validity is that a case agree with you.

I can see myself accepting many cases in other areas.....I have shown how I accept portions of cases with this area too. .That I happen to disagree with the courts decision here means I disagree with their supposed basis for making the decision.....and that surprises you?...I mean you make no damn sense.....of course I disagree...thats what this is about.


here is something for you to chew on and respond to from Suttons opinion ..................
“If a precedent of
this Court has direct application
in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected
in some other line of decisions, the Court of
Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions.”
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc.
, 490 U.S. 477,
484 (1989);
see Agostini v. Felton
, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997)

 

[dcraelin]

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

Well golly...if I'd realized you were starting from a ludicrous premise, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding.

Fanfic is for a different board.

you'd have wasted your time and my time regardless......you've proven that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DCRAELIN SAID:

"I have argued this to death."

Yes you have.

And your 'argument' fails, the consequence of your ignorance of the law and contempt for Constitutional jurisprudence.

 

[dcraelin]

DCRAELIN SAID:

"I have argued this to death."

Yes you have.

And your 'argument' fails, the consequence of your ignorance of the law and contempt for Constitutional jurisprudence.

that is arguable.

I show utmost respect for the Constitution however.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

Well golly...if I'd realized you were starting from a ludicrous premise, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding.

Fanfic is for a different board.

you'd have wasted your time and my time regardless......you've proven that.

I have to wonder why none of the learned barristers defending the states ban od same sex marriage thought of that argument. (At least not as far as I know)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

 

[dcraelin]

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

 

[Vandalshandle]

Honey! Call Chief justice Roberts of the Supreme Court, and tell him my diploma has arrived from Devry University! Tell him that I am on my way to D.C., so go ahead and put another chair behind the bench!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! I acknowledged that the Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In that case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

 

[dcraelin]

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

 

[dcraelin]

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the women's suffrage case that your are referring to, Minor v. Happersett, only the Missouri supreme court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS held that citizenship did not automatically entitle someone to vote, but never said that the 14th only applied to former slaves. The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th, so this is just more proof that your position, that women did not win the right to vote under the 14th because it was only intended for former slaves, still fails

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.