Liberal FASCISM in California

[Shogun]

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



Remember, Shog self-identifies as a liberal.

Holy SHIT! Ravi jumping in to CHEER LEAD without having the slightest idea what the conversations about, letalone, trying to prove her cookie cutter opinion?


no WAY...

 

[Shogun]

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

Maybe not in the entire state but certainly smarter than you...

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't authoritative at all! nope!

 

[Shogun]

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





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.

yup... cause a packed SUPREME COURT is totally powerless to redact the ruling of a state court!





oh man.. it's just richer every day.

 

[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.

Hey, DOGGER...


would you like to tell me how many times a STATE supreme court has ever PUNKED OUT the FEDERAL supreme court? i mean, you've spent all your money and time on SOMETHING besides talking shit, right?

 

[ReillyT]

yup... cause a packed SUPREME COURT is totally powerless to redact the ruling of a state court!





oh man.. it's just richer every day.

You are actually right that a USSC cannot overrule the decision of a state supreme court interpreting the State constitution (unless the state constitution is read more narrowly than the US constitution). States can expand on the rights provided by the US Constitution, they just can't narrow them. That is federalism.

 

[ReillyT]

Hey, DOGGER...


would you like to tell me how many times a STATE supreme court has ever PUNKED OUT the FEDERAL supreme court? i mean, you've spent all your money and time on SOMETHING besides talking shit, right?

Not sure what you are talking about. State courts can interpret the US Constitution in certain circumstances, and then they may be overruled. State courts can also interpret state constitutions and be overruled, but only when the state court attempts to restrict rights to a greater extent than the Constitution. The only way the USSC could overrule this decision is if there was something in the US Consitution that prohibited gay marriage, and there clearly isn't (see many attempts to add an constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice).

 

[Dogger]

The only way the USSC could overrule this decision is if there was something in the US Consitution that prohibited gay marriage, and there clearly isn't (see many attempts to add an constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice).

True, unless they pull another Bush v. Gore.

 

[ReillyT]

True, unless they pull another Bush v. Gore.

I have actually never read the case. What was their claim to jurisdiction?

Later edit: Never mind. EP clause.

 

[Shogun]

Not sure what you are talking about. State courts can interpret the US Constitution in certain circumstances, and then they may be overruled. State courts can also interpret state constitutions and be overruled, but only when the state court attempts to restrict rights to a greater extent than the Constitution. The only way the USSC could overrule this decision is if there was something in the US Consitution that prohibited gay marriage, and there clearly isn't (see many attempts to add an constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice).

Have you forgotten the albatross this issue was in 04? Indeed, I seem to recall that quite a few states did, in fact, move towards protecting the status of marriage between a man and a woman. Do you think there will be no federal reaction to this?


The most recent vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regards to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

 

[doeton]

hey shogun, coudl you please regal us with your view of the proper rule for the courts?

i mean beyond the obvious sentencing of wanton lactivists and abortion seekers...and to approve the drugging of illegals.

 

[Shogun]

meh.. I'll go ahead and let you relive the 04 cycle where this very same issue galvanized support against dems. Indeed, who even NEEDS a legislature when there is a judiciary to decide what the people REALLY mean when they vote for a marriage protection amendment.

 

[doeton]

sorry chief...may be when you've recovered from the merry go round they put you on...

 

[Shogun]

eh? I thought you were going to start making sense after that last round of shock treatment, yo.


feel free to remind yourself how this very same issue in the last election year brought the reds out in droves. Hell, our own state followed suit.


Gay Marriage Ban in Mo. May Resonate Nationwide

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A02

After an overwhelming vote to ban gay marriage in Missouri on Tuesday, both sides said yesterday that an issue that has gained little traction in Congress appears to be resonating with the American people and could play a growing role in this year's congressional and presidential elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38861-2004Aug4.html

 

[Larkinn]

yup... cause a packed SUPREME COURT is totally powerless to redact the ruling of a state court!





oh man.. it's just richer every day.

The California Supreme Court is the law of the land on this issue. Its interpreting the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.

Do you not understand the concept of federalism?

 

[doeton]

Do you not understand the concept of federalism?

what you mean it doesn't relate to voter backlash?

 

[Shogun]

The California Supreme Court is the law of the land on this issue. Its interpreting the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.

Do you not understand the concept of federalism?

indeed, clearly the 04 election year supports your position.

tell it to the Defense of Marriage Act


The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

or, scream to high heaven at each state that passed a similar resolution in 04

OR go ahead and ignore the same backlash we saw the last presidential election. You really are a smart guy, dude. Like, a regular doogie howser of politics.


The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.[3] Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Federal_law

 

[doeton]

i mention relativity now...because to the person on the merry go round it will appear as if it is you who moving...and not they...

 

[Larkinn]

The 04 election is irrelevant. The 04 election had NOTHING to do with federalism.

You are apparently just too stupid to realize what my position is. And, by the way, its not a position, its a fact. Reilly and Dogger fleshed it out a little bit to provide for the exceptions, but fact is that the USSC will NOT take up the case of this case.

Ever wonder why they are asking for a Constitution amendment before its been appealed? Thats becuase it can't be appealed, because the California Supreme Court is the law of the Land on the California Constitution . Even the rest of the idiots on your side recognize that basic fundamental fact of American jurisprudence.

 

[Shogun]

no, the 04 election is NOT irrelevant. It shows how this particular issue has the capacity to galvanize support to overturn shit like your happy little judical legislation yesterday. In fact, if you can't see how this kind of shit brings the dogma junkies out in droves to vote AGAINST those who would otherwise support gay marriage then, again, it makes sense that you would brag about your pedigree.

yea, it's a FACT that you can predict that no one will challenge a state law in California after a pair of married homosexuals vie for recognition of their status in another state that has banned such, eh?

GOOD JOB, DUDE! You probably also think that Massachusetts is a done deal too, eh?




Hey, enjoy it while you can.. You are defending the usurping of the legislative process and, even while it you support the results, you diminish the role of the same people who voted otherwise. Make sure you cry like a spurned toddler when the next Bush v Gore repercussion rolls around. It probably won't be ironic as **** or anything.

 

[doeton]

yeah boy shodumb really makes a great case for abandoning the court system although together.