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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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 ...

This is a direct assault on the US Constitution which says that the Supreme Court may not create new addendums to the US Constitution. That's what they did when they assigned "special rights' to a class of people who draw their collective identity (cult) around (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other) deviant sexual behaviors. Behaviors don't have rights. And if they do, then all of them do or none of them do. There can be no arbitrary discrimination. Which is exactly why the moment the ink was dry on June 26, 2015, SCOTUS defiled the separation of powers and totally dismantled the word "marriage" to mean "anyone, anywhere, anytime".

And this is a detriment to children. It could be fixed though by this: Idea For New Constitutional Amendment The Child Consideration Amendment US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And more attention also paid to this issue: CA s Babies For Sale Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking Page 17 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

There is a class of people who remain wholly unprotected, wholly exposed to danger in real and prectable ways by what the Court did this Summer. And they are the last class of people left in the US who cannot vote to protect themselves. Therefore they are in immediate risk of legal and physical peril. They are called "children"...

 

[Syriusly]

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?.

They ruled that the laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional.

As you said- that is what they can do- and that is what they did.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ...

This is a direct assault on the US Constitution which says that the Supreme Court may not create new addendums to the US Constitution. .

No.

It is not.

 

[Syriusly]

The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

I am no loser because the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriages are unconstitutional.

Certainly none of the couples getting married because of it are.

This is the fourth time that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as unconstitutional. We have lost nothing in any of those cases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?

State Court Action
State Legislative Action
State Ballot Initiative
Federal Court Action


A variety of ways.


>>>>

 

[Freewill]

How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?

State Court Action
State Legislative Action
State Ballot Initiative
Federal Court Action


A variety of ways.


>>>>

Only 16 states passed laws to legalize gay marriage. Courts allowed them in the other states, not the legislative branch and those decisions were about anti-gay marriage laws. Which was finalized by the SCOTUS. Why all marriage laws were not found to be unconsituional, in the 34 other states, 41 if you are Obama is anyone's guess.

 

[Freewill]

The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

I am no loser because the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriages are unconstitutional.

Certainly none of the couples getting married because of it are.

This is the fourth time that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as unconstitutional. We have lost nothing in any of those cases.

The way they are legislating from the bench is what we are losing. Gay-marriage, who gives a crap. Marry your same sex friend why should anyone give a crap?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You losers, get over it, please. You sound just like the segregationists and their rationale, and you know where and how all that ended.

 

[Syriusly]

The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

I am no loser because the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriages are unconstitutional.

Certainly none of the couples getting married because of it are.

This is the fourth time that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as unconstitutional. We have lost nothing in any of those cases.

The way they are legislating from the bench is what we are losing. Gay-marriage, who gives a crap. Marry your same sex friend why should anyone give a crap?

No more 'legislating from the bench' than any other ruling that a law is unconstitutional.

This is the 4th time the Supreme Court has found a marriage ban unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?

State Court Action
State Legislative Action
State Ballot Initiative
Federal Court Action


A variety of ways.


>>>>

Only 16 states passed laws to legalize gay marriage. Courts allowed them in the other states, not the legislative branch and those decisions were about anti-gay marriage laws. Which was finalized by the SCOTUS. Why all marriage laws were not found to be unconsituional, in the 34 other states, .... is anyone's guess.

The courts only determine the cases brought before them. That is not a guess. What is amazing about these cases is the agreement by the many courts- both State and Federal regarding the unconstitutionality of these bans.

Many states- such as Massachusetts- had their State Supreme Court find that their law was unconstitutional based upon the State constitution. In other states, such as California, Federal judges found that the laws were unconstitutional based upon the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court only ruled on the cases before the court- but just like in Loving v. Virginia, and Lawrence v. Kansas- the effect was that any laws that are the same as the laws found to be unconstitutional- are also unconstitutional.

 

[Faun]

The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

I am no loser because the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriages are unconstitutional.

Certainly none of the couples getting married because of it are.

This is the fourth time that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as unconstitutional. We have lost nothing in any of those cases.

The way they are legislating from the bench is what we are losing. Gay-marriage, who gives a crap. Marry your same sex friend why should anyone give a crap?

What legislation did they pass?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only problem is that we are all losers when the SCOTUS acts as they did in this case and the ACA ruling.

I am no loser because the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriages are unconstitutional.

Certainly none of the couples getting married because of it are.

This is the fourth time that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as unconstitutional. We have lost nothing in any of those cases.

The way they are legislating from the bench is what we are losing. Gay-marriage, who gives a crap. Marry your same sex friend why should anyone give a crap?

What legislation did they pass?

Please be specific: what legislation?

 

[WorldWatcher]

How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?

State Court Action
State Legislative Action
State Ballot Initiative
Federal Court Action


A variety of ways.


>>>>

Only 16 states passed laws to legalize gay marriage. Courts allowed them in the other states, not the legislative branch and those decisions were about anti-gay marriage laws. Which was finalized by the SCOTUS. Why all marriage laws were not found to be unconsituional, in the 34 other states, 41 if you are Obama is anyone's guess.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

You asked "How did gay marriage become legal in all 50 states?"

In some states it was via State Court (ex. Massachusetts & Iowa).

In other states it was via State Legislature (ex. New York and Rhode Island).

In other states it was by ballot initiative (ex. Maine and Washington).

In the rest it was by Federal court, those not already allowing SSCM since the bans were found to be unconstitutional.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

"Although the Court issued its ruling on June 26, its rules allow twenty-five days for a request to reconsider; after that, the Court waits another week to make sure that a petition for rehearing has not been sent through the mail. Because no petition for rehearing was filed, the case was closed with the Tuesday order."

Same-sex marriage ruling put into formal effect SCOTUSblog



Just a legal update. No rehearing requests were received.

>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

>

"Although the Court issued its ruling on June 26, its rules allow twenty-five days for a request to reconsider; after that, the Court waits another week to make sure that a petition for rehearing has not been sent through the mail. Because no petition for rehearing was filed, the case was closed with the Tuesday order."

Same-sex marriage ruling put into formal effect SCOTUSblog



Just a legal update. No rehearing requests were received.

>>>>

Over and done with. Thank God for small favors.