Motions To Rehear Gay Marriage Case Due Soon: A GOP Strategy (AG Phone #s in OP)

[Syriusly]

I found a soul mate for Silhouette- while looking into rehearing before the Supreme Court
Windsor files Petition for Rehearing with U.S. Supreme Court

This sounds oh so familiar

On November 29, 2010, The United States Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by me. It was a one-word ruling: DENIED.


The justices of our Supreme Court were told that the federal judges in Atlanta are corrupt and are violating the Constitution. Nothing was filed against me, so my Petition was uncontroverted, uncontested.

On December 6, 2010, I will send a Petition for Rehearing to The Supreme Court, and I am giving them notice of potential criminal action against them.

 

[Silhouette]

You have quite a large pool to draw from Syriusly. There are more than two people who think children have a right to both a mother and father in marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

You have quite a large pool to draw from Syriusly. There are more than two people who think children have a right to both a mother and father in marriage.

If children have a right to a mother and father in a marriage- why are millions of children denied that right by my fellow heterosexuals?

How do you intend to punish the heterosexuals who are denying those children their right to a mother and a father in marriage?

Or are you going to outlaw divorce- and mandate that biological parents live in the same house?

What if one spouse is physically abusive to the other- those children still have that same right to both a mother and a father in marriage?

How exactly do you envision the courts protecting the rights of the millions and millions of children that heterosexuals are denying right at this moment?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Tomorrow is the day right Sil?


>>>>

 

[mdk]

When these attorneys do jack and shit about this 'important motion' tomorrow you can bet Sil will invent some wild conspiracy as to why they did nothing.

 

[mdk]

Tick tock Clarice.

 

[J.E.D]

Any minute now

 

[farmer]

So we take out the two that did SSM because they might have bias. Then we need to take out any that have preformed straight ceremonys (sp) because they might be biased. Now we have to disqualify any with religious reasons to be biased, I think there are 4 catholics. Is there anyone left to hear the case?

 

[Syriusly]

Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......

 

[Skylar]

You have quite a large pool to draw from Syriusly. There are more than two people who think children have a right to both a mother and father in marriage.

If children have a right to a mother and father in a marriage- why are millions of children denied that right by my fellow heterosexuals?

How do you intend to punish the heterosexuals who are denying those children their right to a mother and a father in marriage?

Or are you going to outlaw divorce- and mandate that biological parents live in the same house?

What if one spouse is physically abusive to the other- those children still have that same right to both a mother and a father in marriage?

How exactly do you envision the courts protecting the rights of the millions and millions of children that heterosexuals are denying right at this moment?

Irrelevant. None of those kids let him attack gays or strip them of rights, so they're beneath his consideration.

The funny part? The Prince Trust study. Every single specific example of a child without a good same sex role model was from a single parent household. Every single one. Single parenthood is strongly correlated to poorer outcomes for children. Single parenthood is quite common.

Yet Sil virtually ignores it.

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions same sex marriage, gays, same sex parenting, or anything Sil attributes to it. Yet Sil insistst that the Prince Trust study condemns same sex parenting. Same sex parenting produces comperable results for children as 2 parent hetero households. And gay marriage is compartively rare.

Yet Sil focuses on gays obsessively.

If the welfare of children were really Sil's concern, almost all of his argument would be about single parenting. Yet they barely warrant a mention. Instead, its nothing but attacks on gays. And demonstrate elegantly what Sil's priorities are:

Hurting gay people and stripping them of their rights. Any child that doesn't serve that end is irrelevant to him.

 

[PratchettFan]

Printed as a favor

From: EMERGENCY Final chance to save legal man-woman marriage distinction
***********
..Four attorneys general -- from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan -- have both the ability and responsibility to ask for a rehearing of the marriage cases, minus one or two of the high court judges who've performed homosexual "weddings" (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan). But they've got only 3 days to file their vitally-important motion.

U.S Code 28, Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
DefendTheFamily.com Alert

Friends,

There is one last chance to save marriage: a Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court. The brief is ready. The army of lawyers is ready. But the party with standing, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is still not convinced that he should file it.

Your Mission: CONVINCE HIM (nicely).

Ask to speak to a supervisor and explain that we have only 3 days left to file a motion to rehear the marriage case and protect our freedoms!

ALSO Call the Attorneys General of KY, TN and MI also. Urge them to file a "Motion for Rehearing" in the Supreme Court marriage case--before Monday, July 20th. Ask them to present the new information about how Justice Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating a homosexual "wedding" after the oral arguments but before the ruling.

(CALL THESE PEOPLE TODAY! DON'T JUST THINK ABOUT IT AND NOT DO IT)
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

OH Attorney Gen. Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
KY Attorney General Jack Conway: 502-696-5300
TN Attorney General Herbert Slatery: 615-741-3491
MI Attorney General Bill Schuette: 517-373-1110
*********

I'm sure republicans think they're being careful not doing the right thing. After all, even though the polls against gay marriage keep regularly showing up here running in the 80% range, they may feel it's worth the risk to alienate some of the 80% from the middle/dem ground and try to win those coveted (if rare) "hard left" votes.

I got to thinking about it though. What if they took on this fight? What if they really put their backs into making a change on this one issue that is so vitally important? Let's face it, when pushed on the question, the number of people who believe it's "OK" to strip children as a tax-rewarded institution of either a father or a mother 100% of the time, is probably around under 10% of the total population. Even the gays are bickering in their own camp about whether or not their own being raised by parents should be experimentally-denied to subsequent generations:

Read more on that infighting here: Tomorrow You Will Apologize. The Year After Persecute. How Cults Progress US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So, if the GOP took this on, forced Kagan and Ginsburg back in the shadows at least, or gave them the ultimatum "you recuse yourselves or we'll recuse you from your job"..imagine the impact that would have on the voter desperate for strong leadership in a hugely popular cause (returning the question of motherless or fatherless marriages back to the People)? Instead of a bunch of slick suits, glossy smiles and reptilian empty promises...which does not set them apart from the dems...we would have in the GOP candidates a strong, virile and rugged appearance. And considering the "threat" in 2016 from the dems, the more strong and virile the GOP looks the more votes they get. It's going to be that simple of an equation.

I would suggest at the same time a softer stance on some left issues...maybe a bone for green energy? Universal healthcare? A real and compelling plan that boosts capitalism and helps the little guys get a better wage at the same time? You've heard all my arguments before so I won't exhaust them here. Long story short, if folks weren't paying the equivalent of a second full mortgage on healthcare, they'd spend more in other markets that are now floundering or anemic in their combacks.. 'nuff said..

The two actions: retrial of the 90% popular idea of returning the decision on fatherless or motherless marriages back to the states (Don't call it "gay marriage" anymore or "same sex marriage"...call it "motherless/fatherless marriage" since that puts the focus on children involved and will render FAR more support)...then a bone thrown in the area of a favorite middle dem issue and the nazi hard left will have completely sunk all the swine in my erstwhile party right out of the game.


Tick tick tick...time's awasting... Start calling those AGs & governors NOW.

Not the slightest inkling of a chance. The only court which can order the Supreme Court to do anything is the Supreme Court. If they thought the justices should recuse themselves, they would have recused them. If there actually are AG's doing this (and I doubt it) they are doing it for political points only.

 

[Syriusly]

Printed as a favor

From: EMERGENCY Final chance to save legal man-woman marriage distinction
***********
..Four attorneys general -- from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan -- have both the ability and responsibility to ask for a rehearing of the marriage cases, minus one or two of the high court judges who've performed homosexual "weddings" (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan). But they've got only 3 days to file their vitally-important motion.

U.S Code 28, Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
DefendTheFamily.com Alert

Friends,

There is one last chance to save marriage: a Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court. The brief is ready. The army of lawyers is ready. But the party with standing, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is still not convinced that he should file it.

Your Mission: CONVINCE HIM (nicely).

Ask to speak to a supervisor and explain that we have only 3 days left to file a motion to rehear the marriage case and protect our freedoms!

ALSO Call the Attorneys General of KY, TN and MI also. Urge them to file a "Motion for Rehearing" in the Supreme Court marriage case--before Monday, July 20th. Ask them to present the new information about how Justice Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating a homosexual "wedding" after the oral arguments but before the ruling.

(CALL THESE PEOPLE TODAY! DON'T JUST THINK ABOUT IT AND NOT DO IT)
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

OH Attorney Gen. Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
KY Attorney General Jack Conway: 502-696-5300
TN Attorney General Herbert Slatery: 615-741-3491
MI Attorney General Bill Schuette: 517-373-1110
*********

I'm sure republicans think they're being careful not doing the right thing. After all, even though the polls against gay marriage keep regularly showing up here running in the 80% range, they may feel it's worth the risk to alienate some of the 80% from the middle/dem ground and try to win those coveted (if rare) "hard left" votes.

I got to thinking about it though. What if they took on this fight? What if they really put their backs into making a change on this one issue that is so vitally important? Let's face it, when pushed on the question, the number of people who believe it's "OK" to strip children as a tax-rewarded institution of either a father or a mother 100% of the time, is probably around under 10% of the total population. Even the gays are bickering in their own camp about whether or not their own being raised by parents should be experimentally-denied to subsequent generations:

Read more on that infighting here: Tomorrow You Will Apologize. The Year After Persecute. How Cults Progress US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So, if the GOP took this on, forced Kagan and Ginsburg back in the shadows at least, or gave them the ultimatum "you recuse yourselves or we'll recuse you from your job"..imagine the impact that would have on the voter desperate for strong leadership in a hugely popular cause (returning the question of motherless or fatherless marriages back to the People)? Instead of a bunch of slick suits, glossy smiles and reptilian empty promises...which does not set them apart from the dems...we would have in the GOP candidates a strong, virile and rugged appearance. And considering the "threat" in 2016 from the dems, the more strong and virile the GOP looks the more votes they get. It's going to be that simple of an equation.

I would suggest at the same time a softer stance on some left issues...maybe a bone for green energy? Universal healthcare? A real and compelling plan that boosts capitalism and helps the little guys get a better wage at the same time? You've heard all my arguments before so I won't exhaust them here. Long story short, if folks weren't paying the equivalent of a second full mortgage on healthcare, they'd spend more in other markets that are now floundering or anemic in their combacks.. 'nuff said..

The two actions: retrial of the 90% popular idea of returning the decision on fatherless or motherless marriages back to the states (Don't call it "gay marriage" anymore or "same sex marriage"...call it "motherless/fatherless marriage" since that puts the focus on children involved and will render FAR more support)...then a bone thrown in the area of a favorite middle dem issue and the nazi hard left will have completely sunk all the swine in my erstwhile party right out of the game.


Tick tick tick...time's awasting... Start calling those AGs & governors NOW.

Not the slightest inkling of a chance. The only court which can order the Supreme Court to do anything is the Supreme Court. If they thought the justices should recuse themselves, they would have recused them. If there actually are AG's doing this (and I doubt it) they are doing it for political points only.

Yep political points- some of them may try it- I imagine it is rather routine to request a rehearing- just to exhaust all remedies- and probably all of them are routinely denied.

 

[Skylar]

Printed as a favor

From: EMERGENCY Final chance to save legal man-woman marriage distinction
***********
..Four attorneys general -- from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan -- have both the ability and responsibility to ask for a rehearing of the marriage cases, minus one or two of the high court judges who've performed homosexual "weddings" (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan). But they've got only 3 days to file their vitally-important motion.

U.S Code 28, Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
DefendTheFamily.com Alert

Friends,

There is one last chance to save marriage: a Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court. The brief is ready. The army of lawyers is ready. But the party with standing, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is still not convinced that he should file it.

Your Mission: CONVINCE HIM (nicely).

Ask to speak to a supervisor and explain that we have only 3 days left to file a motion to rehear the marriage case and protect our freedoms!

ALSO Call the Attorneys General of KY, TN and MI also. Urge them to file a "Motion for Rehearing" in the Supreme Court marriage case--before Monday, July 20th. Ask them to present the new information about how Justice Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating a homosexual "wedding" after the oral arguments but before the ruling.

(CALL THESE PEOPLE TODAY! DON'T JUST THINK ABOUT IT AND NOT DO IT)
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

OH Attorney Gen. Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
KY Attorney General Jack Conway: 502-696-5300
TN Attorney General Herbert Slatery: 615-741-3491
MI Attorney General Bill Schuette: 517-373-1110
*********

I'm sure republicans think they're being careful not doing the right thing. After all, even though the polls against gay marriage keep regularly showing up here running in the 80% range, they may feel it's worth the risk to alienate some of the 80% from the middle/dem ground and try to win those coveted (if rare) "hard left" votes.

I got to thinking about it though. What if they took on this fight? What if they really put their backs into making a change on this one issue that is so vitally important? Let's face it, when pushed on the question, the number of people who believe it's "OK" to strip children as a tax-rewarded institution of either a father or a mother 100% of the time, is probably around under 10% of the total population. Even the gays are bickering in their own camp about whether or not their own being raised by parents should be experimentally-denied to subsequent generations:

Read more on that infighting here: Tomorrow You Will Apologize. The Year After Persecute. How Cults Progress US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So, if the GOP took this on, forced Kagan and Ginsburg back in the shadows at least, or gave them the ultimatum "you recuse yourselves or we'll recuse you from your job"..imagine the impact that would have on the voter desperate for strong leadership in a hugely popular cause (returning the question of motherless or fatherless marriages back to the People)? Instead of a bunch of slick suits, glossy smiles and reptilian empty promises...which does not set them apart from the dems...we would have in the GOP candidates a strong, virile and rugged appearance. And considering the "threat" in 2016 from the dems, the more strong and virile the GOP looks the more votes they get. It's going to be that simple of an equation.

I would suggest at the same time a softer stance on some left issues...maybe a bone for green energy? Universal healthcare? A real and compelling plan that boosts capitalism and helps the little guys get a better wage at the same time? You've heard all my arguments before so I won't exhaust them here. Long story short, if folks weren't paying the equivalent of a second full mortgage on healthcare, they'd spend more in other markets that are now floundering or anemic in their combacks.. 'nuff said..

The two actions: retrial of the 90% popular idea of returning the decision on fatherless or motherless marriages back to the states (Don't call it "gay marriage" anymore or "same sex marriage"...call it "motherless/fatherless marriage" since that puts the focus on children involved and will render FAR more support)...then a bone thrown in the area of a favorite middle dem issue and the nazi hard left will have completely sunk all the swine in my erstwhile party right out of the game.


Tick tick tick...time's awasting... Start calling those AGs & governors NOW.

Not the slightest inkling of a chance. The only court which can order the Supreme Court to do anything is the Supreme Court. If they thought the justices should recuse themselves, they would have recused them. If there actually are AG's doing this (and I doubt it) they are doing it for political points only.

OF course there isn't. Sil is in the classic 'bargaining' phase of loss and grief.

He's imagined an amendment that will strip gays of their rights....which won't happen. He's imagined a rehearing of the Obergefell case. Which won't happen. He's imagined impeachment within the USSC. Which won't happen.

 

[bendog]

The Lost Cause. LOL

 

[mdk]

As predicted, these four Attorney Generals did nothing concerning this 'important motion' and now I await what new conspiracy theory Sil will offer for their inaction.

My guess is they were bitten by a Megabat and it transformed them into drag queens. They would have filed this 'important motion' but they were far too busy lip-syncing for their lives for RuPaul.

 

[Freewill]

The truth is that Gay marriage was going to happen eventually so the ruling just moved up the process.

The truth is what the SCOTUS did was actually outside their judicial juridiction. They can rule laws unconsitutional, but to make law? Really? Is that what anyone wants? Is that what Dred Scott wanted?

The truth is in what the OP says. At least two of the judges should have not voted themselves because they didn't have the ability to be impartial. I will bet, and could be wrong, that if they had then the same thing might have happened but the voted would have been 4/3 but law would not have been made. I think the fix is always in and the justices decide who is going to vote how to save face.

What this is, is a case where the justices were appointed properly although Congress certainly should have stopped a few of them and the decision is not liked by the "losers." The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

 

[Seawytch]

The truth is that Gay marriage was going to happen eventually so the ruling just moved up the process.

The truth is what the SCOTUS did was actually outside their judicial juridiction. They can rule laws unconsitutional, but to make law? Really? Is that what anyone wants? Is that what Dred Scott wanted?

The truth is in what the OP says. At least two of the judges should have not voted themselves because they didn't have the ability to be impartial. I will bet, and could be wrong, that if they had then the same thing might have happened but the voted would have been 4/3 but law would not have been made. I think the fix is always in and the justices decide who is going to vote how to save face.

What this is, is a case where the justices were appointed properly although Congress certainly should have stopped a few of them and the decision is not liked by the "losers." The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

The truth is you have no idea what you're talking about and just rattled off like ALL the GOP talking points in one breath.

No law was made, bad law was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Freewill]

The truth is that Gay marriage was going to happen eventually so the ruling just moved up the process.

The truth is what the SCOTUS did was actually outside their judicial juridiction. They can rule laws unconsitutional, but to make law? Really? Is that what anyone wants? Is that what Dred Scott wanted?

The truth is in what the OP says. At least two of the judges should have not voted themselves because they didn't have the ability to be impartial. I will bet, and could be wrong, that if they had then the same thing might have happened but the voted would have been 4/3 but law would not have been made. I think the fix is always in and the justices decide who is going to vote how to save face.

What this is, is a case where the justices were appointed properly although Congress certainly should have stopped a few of them and the decision is not liked by the "losers." The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

The truth is you have no idea what you're talking about and just rattled off like ALL the GOP talking points in one breath.

No law was made, bad law was ruled unconstitutional.

How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?

 

[Seawytch]

The truth is that Gay marriage was going to happen eventually so the ruling just moved up the process.

The truth is what the SCOTUS did was actually outside their judicial juridiction. They can rule laws unconsitutional, but to make law? Really? Is that what anyone wants? Is that what Dred Scott wanted?

The truth is in what the OP says. At least two of the judges should have not voted themselves because they didn't have the ability to be impartial. I will bet, and could be wrong, that if they had then the same thing might have happened but the voted would have been 4/3 but law would not have been made. I think the fix is always in and the justices decide who is going to vote how to save face.

What this is, is a case where the justices were appointed properly although Congress certainly should have stopped a few of them and the decision is not liked by the "losers." The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

The truth is you have no idea what you're talking about and just rattled off like ALL the GOP talking points in one breath.

No law was made, bad law was ruled unconstitutional.

How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?

I just told you...bad laws were ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Faun]

Printed as a favor

From: EMERGENCY Final chance to save legal man-woman marriage distinction
***********
..Four attorneys general -- from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan -- have both the ability and responsibility to ask for a rehearing of the marriage cases, minus one or two of the high court judges who've performed homosexual "weddings" (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan). But they've got only 3 days to file their vitally-important motion.

U.S Code 28, Section 455(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
DefendTheFamily.com Alert

Friends,

There is one last chance to save marriage: a Motion for Reconsideration to the Supreme Court. The brief is ready. The army of lawyers is ready. But the party with standing, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is still not convinced that he should file it.

Your Mission: CONVINCE HIM (nicely).

Ask to speak to a supervisor and explain that we have only 3 days left to file a motion to rehear the marriage case and protect our freedoms!

ALSO Call the Attorneys General of KY, TN and MI also. Urge them to file a "Motion for Rehearing" in the Supreme Court marriage case--before Monday, July 20th. Ask them to present the new information about how Justice Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating a homosexual "wedding" after the oral arguments but before the ruling.

(CALL THESE PEOPLE TODAY! DON'T JUST THINK ABOUT IT AND NOT DO IT)
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

OH Attorney Gen. Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
KY Attorney General Jack Conway: 502-696-5300
TN Attorney General Herbert Slatery: 615-741-3491
MI Attorney General Bill Schuette: 517-373-1110
*********

I'm sure republicans think they're being careful not doing the right thing. After all, even though the polls against gay marriage keep regularly showing up here running in the 80% range, they may feel it's worth the risk to alienate some of the 80% from the middle/dem ground and try to win those coveted (if rare) "hard left" votes.

I got to thinking about it though. What if they took on this fight? What if they really put their backs into making a change on this one issue that is so vitally important? Let's face it, when pushed on the question, the number of people who believe it's "OK" to strip children as a tax-rewarded institution of either a father or a mother 100% of the time, is probably around under 10% of the total population. Even the gays are bickering in their own camp about whether or not their own being raised by parents should be experimentally-denied to subsequent generations:

Read more on that infighting here: Tomorrow You Will Apologize. The Year After Persecute. How Cults Progress US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So, if the GOP took this on, forced Kagan and Ginsburg back in the shadows at least, or gave them the ultimatum "you recuse yourselves or we'll recuse you from your job"..imagine the impact that would have on the voter desperate for strong leadership in a hugely popular cause (returning the question of motherless or fatherless marriages back to the People)? Instead of a bunch of slick suits, glossy smiles and reptilian empty promises...which does not set them apart from the dems...we would have in the GOP candidates a strong, virile and rugged appearance. And considering the "threat" in 2016 from the dems, the more strong and virile the GOP looks the more votes they get. It's going to be that simple of an equation.

I would suggest at the same time a softer stance on some left issues...maybe a bone for green energy? Universal healthcare? A real and compelling plan that boosts capitalism and helps the little guys get a better wage at the same time? You've heard all my arguments before so I won't exhaust them here. Long story short, if folks weren't paying the equivalent of a second full mortgage on healthcare, they'd spend more in other markets that are now floundering or anemic in their combacks.. 'nuff said..

The two actions: retrial of the 90% popular idea of returning the decision on fatherless or motherless marriages back to the states (Don't call it "gay marriage" anymore or "same sex marriage"...call it "motherless/fatherless marriage" since that puts the focus on children involved and will render FAR more support)...then a bone thrown in the area of a favorite middle dem issue and the nazi hard left will have completely sunk all the swine in my erstwhile party right out of the game.


Tick tick tick...time's awasting... Start calling those AGs & governors NOW.

Day 25 of the Great Conservative Butthurt. The butthurt drags on.

Oh, and "homosexuality" is STILL not a verb.