Liberal FASCISM in California

[Larkinn]

interpretation of the LEGISLATION THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID NO TO GAY MARRIAGE? Can I use that same brilliance to INTERPRET the constitution too? Im sure there are plenty who would love to re-invent that pesky first amendment.

No, you can't. Know why? Your opinion is meaningless. The Supreme Court of California's interpretation isn't meaningless. See the difference?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That is an old typical fallacious argument. It falls under the domino and slippery slope theory. I’m sorry to inform you that people are not dominos. Let me see if I can show you your argument this way:

Do you think that people should be allowed to drink alcohol even though it is habit forming and may lead to an unhealthy lifestyle? You would not outlaw alcohol consumption for everyone, would you? At what age should people be allowed to drink? Why not at a year older, two years older, five? Why did you pick that particular age? It all comes down to where we draw the line.

Let’s consider tobacco smoking. At what age should people be allowed to smoke? If we allow smoking tobacco, what would be next – marijuana? If we allow people to take marijuana, we shouldn’t deny people the right to take cocaine.

"It all comes down to where we draw the line."



If it were that simple, BUT, the line changes. Look at the end of Roman history and tell me why it collapsed.

 

[mattskramer]

"It all comes down to where we draw the line."

If it were that simple, BUT, the line changes. Look at the end of Roman history and tell me why it collapsed.

The fact that we draw the line is the fundamental basis. We also move the line. If we think that people are too free, we move in it one direction. If we think that people are being too restricted, we move it in another direction.

I don't know why Rome collapsed. There are probably many variables that, as a whole, contributed to the collapse of Rome. Rome is not America.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

If Jon and Dan or Jill and Jane from the down the street exchanging marriage vows somehow threatens your family or your marriage, its safe to say your marriage was already in tatters.

 

[mattskramer]

If Jon and Dan or Jill and Jane from the down the street exchanging marriage vows somehow threatens your family or your marriage, its safe to say your marriage was already in tatters.

Great point.

 

[Shogun]

No, you can't. Know why? Your opinion is meaningless. The Supreme Court of California's interpretation isn't meaningless. See the difference?

oh well THAT was a brilliant retort.





Clearly, I'm dealing with the progeny of a rhodes scholar instead of a crack whore.

 

[Shogun]

If Jon and Dan or Jill and Jane from the down the street exchanging marriage vows somehow threatens your family or your marriage, its safe to say your marriage was already in tatters.

hey, im all for equality among marriage for gays... BUT, you can't just hijack the legislation and pretend that the court indicates the will of the people more than passed legislation. Would you call shenannigans if a CONSERVATIVE packed court started making the same decisions about the lack of gay equality? I'd bet so. Like I said, it's not quite the victory they should have had and will continue to be a rock in the liberal shoe.

 

[Larkinn]

just remember... turnabout is fairplay... If it just so happens that mccain wins and packs the supreme court I'm going to be laughing like a crazy at you people who will be crying about judicial activism THEN...

You do realize this is the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court, and there is nothing McCain can do about it, yes?

But keep impressing us with your knowledge of the law

 

[Dogger]

Would you call shenannigans if a CONSERVATIVE packed court started making the same decisions about the lack of gay equality?

A Court that fails to protect the public from authoritatian government has shirked it's Constitutional duty every bit as much as a President that fails to protect the country from hostile nations or a Congress that fails to oversee the functioning of the government. It's ignorant to demand a Court that will not protect your rights because you hate their protection of other people's rights. Just because you can't see it coming doesn't mean the threat isn't there.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

hey, im all for equality among marriage for gays... BUT, you can't just hijack the legislation and pretend that the court indicates the will of the people more than passed legislation. Would you call shenannigans if a CONSERVATIVE packed court started making the same decisions about the lack of gay equality? I'd bet so. Like I said, it's not quite the victory they should have had and will continue to be a rock in the liberal shoe.

I'm pretty sure it was the will of the people.

You realize this happened in California right?

Anyways, this is a pretty stupid issue. Waste of time if you ask me.

 

[Shogun]

the courts job is NOT to protect America from an authoritative government. Can you provide evidence of such or is this were we all try to pass bullshit as milk chocolate? Hell, what Administration in our history WASNT a bastion of authoritative federal power?

I've read article three too, dude. I'm calling you out on the bullshit.

no, what is ignorant is ignoring how out fucking system of gov works just because YOu like the results.

And, one more time ya non reading pussy, Im all for equal rights for gays including marriage. But, undermining the constitution won't validate your opinion any more than the governor of alabama could after desegregation was LEGISLATED.


Apparently, given how many lawyers I chew up and spit out on this website, I should have went to law school.

 

[Shogun]

You do realize this is the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court, and there is nothing McCain can do about it, yes?

But keep impressing us with your knowledge of the law

HA!


yea, COLLEGE BOY, there sure the fuck isn't anything that a president can do to pack the supreme fucking court with conservative judges, eh? Hell, we've NEVER seen a superior court overturn the decision of a lower court, have we?




now THATS rich.

 

[Larkinn]

the courts job is NOT to protect America from an authoritative government. Can you provide evidence of such or is this were we all try to pass bullshit as milk chocolate? Hell, what Administration in our history WASNT a bastion of authoritative federal power?

I've read article three too, dude. I'm calling you out on the bullshit.

no, what is ignorant is ignoring how out fucking system of gov works just because YOu like the results.

And, one more time ya non reading pussy, Im all for equal rights for gays including marriage. But, undermining the constitution won't validate your opinion any more than the governor of alabama could after desegregation was LEGISLATED.


Apparently, given how many lawyers I chew up and spit out on this website, I should have went to law school.

Idiot. This was interpreting the California Constitution which over-rules state legislation, just as the US Constitution which overrules federal legislation.

yea, COLLEGE BOY, there sure the fuck isn't anything that a president can do to pack the supreme fucking court with conservative judges, eh? Hell, we've NEVER seen a superior court overturn the decision of a lower court, have we?

The President CANNOT pack a STATE Supreme Court. And regarding the CALIFORNIA Constitution, the California Supreme Court is the law of the land. The USSC has no jurisdiction here.

 

[Dogger]

Apparently, given how many lawyers I chew up and spit out on this website, I should have went to law school.

The first thing law school does is encourage you to unlearn the law you think you already know. I doubt you could afford the tuition for the years that process would require of you.

 

[Shogun]

I'm pretty sure it was the will of the people.

You realize this happened in California right?

Anyways, this is a pretty stupid issue. Waste of time if you ask me.

really? ok, then post your evidence. Hell, where do you think the GAY MARRAIGE BAN came from in the first place? 04 LEGISLATION?

 

[doeton]

the courts job is NOT to protect America from an authoritative government..

now we know shogun says a lot of dumb things...

but dam.

 

[Shogun]

The first thing law school does is encourage you to unlearn
the law you think you already know. I doubt you could afford the tuition for the years that process would require of you.

yup.. because missouri is a vast wasteland of lawyerless barrens...



indeed, your amazing mental prowess gives you the superhuman ability of not only knowing my financial background but ALSO you can read the future and know what is in store for the next couple of years.


I notice you don't actually address my points so I'll go ahead and take that as being a bit more indicative of your hilarious little defense mechanism.

 

[Ravi]

now we know shogun says a lot of dumb things...

but dam.

I've been dying laughing over that stupidity of his.



Remember, Shog self-identifies as a liberal.

 

[Ravi]

yup.. because missouri is a vast wasteland of lawyerless barrens...



indeed, your amazing mental prowess gives you the superhuman ability of not only knowing my financial background but ALSO you can read the future and know what is in store for the next couple of years.


I notice you don't actually address my points so I'll go ahead and take that as being a bit more indicative of your hilarious little defense mechanism.

Shog, I'm willing to bet you are the smartest person in Missouri.

 

[Shogun]

now we know shogun says a lot of dumb things...

but dam.

ooook.. Feel free to bludgeon me about the head and neck with Article Three of the ole Constitution. Hell, I wonder how autoratative the south saw ole Lincoln.. Or, hell, ANYTHING andy jackson did with the natives. I know I know... Wahington, Buchannan, Grant and Eisenhauer all strike you as wheat grass eating, tree hugging yoga masters who didn't want to be your AUTHORITATIVE president so much as your little buddy!




feel free to add something relevant the doeton..