Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[martybegan]

The SC can rule on whether state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional. It cannot decree that gay marriage is constitutional. Do you understand the difference?

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justices are appointed officials selected by people we elect. It is called republican government. Other examples are school board presidents and city managers.

The far right only likes elections when they have the numbers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

Its 'mandate' allows it to do what nuts like you call 'making new law'.

Who enforces any 'mandate' against the Supreme Court? Cite the mandate. Cite the enforcement mechanism.

 

[martybegan]

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

Its 'mandate' allows it to do what nuts like you call 'making new law'.

Who enforces any 'mandate' against the Supreme Court? Cite the mandate. Cite the enforcement mechanism.

If they continue down this path, States will start ignoring the court, and then the Executive Branch will be faced with a dilemma. The court is supposed to interpret law, not make it. You only like it because it gives you an end run around the People to implement things YOU like that screws other people over.

 

[martybegan]

Justices are appointed officials selected by people we elect. It is called republican government. Other examples are school board presidents and city managers.

The far right only likes elections when they have the numbers.

At the local level those people are easy to get rid of if they do things people don't like. The problem with increasing the power of people at the federal level is that they are harder to get rid of.

ANYONE only likes elections when they have the numbers, Stop being such a hack, Farkey.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no such thing as "gay marriage," there's only one marriage law in each of the 50 states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

lol, all you really want is some sort of magic to occur that will make the Supreme Court your personal puppet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

Its 'mandate' allows it to do what nuts like you call 'making new law'.

Who enforces any 'mandate' against the Supreme Court? Cite the mandate. Cite the enforcement mechanism.

If they continue down this path, States will start ignoring the court, and then the Executive Branch will be faced with a dilemma. The court is supposed to interpret law, not make it. You only like it because it gives you an end run around the People to implement things YOU like that screws other people over.

Interpreting the law results in making law. That's why they call Supreme Court decisions 'case LAW'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

Its 'mandate' allows it to do what nuts like you call 'making new law'.

Who enforces any 'mandate' against the Supreme Court? Cite the mandate. Cite the enforcement mechanism.

If they continue down this path, States will start ignoring the court, and then the Executive Branch will be faced with a dilemma. The court is supposed to interpret law, not make it. You only like it because it gives you an end run around the People to implement things YOU like that screws other people over.

On Marriage Equality. Not likely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justices are appointed officials selected by people we elect. It is called republican government. Other examples are school board presidents and city managers.

The far right only likes elections when they have the numbers.

At the local level those people are easy to get rid of if they do things people don't like. The problem with increasing the power of people at the federal level is that they are harder to get rid of.

ANYONE only likes elections when they have the numbers, Stop being such a hack, Farkey.

Explaining matters constitutionally to you is a joy. Your reaction is hackery.

 

[martybegan]

What a bunch of doublethink. You can't even accept that what you want is something different from what has been established in law for centuries, but you claim there is a legal right to it, even if it has never been defined as such....

Wasn't the greatness of the Constitution and perhaps similar documents that they established in law rights that had not been so established in law before?

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

lol, all you really want is some sort of magic to occur that will make the Supreme Court your personal puppet.

So voicing an opinion = wanting the court to be my puppet. Nice use of argumentum ad abusrdum there.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

Its 'mandate' allows it to do what nuts like you call 'making new law'.

Who enforces any 'mandate' against the Supreme Court? Cite the mandate. Cite the enforcement mechanism.

If they continue down this path, States will start ignoring the court, and then the Executive Branch will be faced with a dilemma. The court is supposed to interpret law, not make it. You only like it because it gives you an end run around the People to implement things YOU like that screws other people over.

Interpreting the law results in making law. That's why they call Supreme Court decisions 'case LAW'.

No interpreting the law means clarifying existing law, and if needed overturning it because of being explicitly unconstitutional, not "because I want it".

 

[martybegan]

Justices are appointed officials selected by people we elect. It is called republican government. Other examples are school board presidents and city managers.

The far right only likes elections when they have the numbers.

At the local level those people are easy to get rid of if they do things people don't like. The problem with increasing the power of people at the federal level is that they are harder to get rid of.

ANYONE only likes elections when they have the numbers, Stop being such a hack, Farkey.

Explaining matters constitutionally to you is a joy. Your reaction is hackery.

You couldn't explain your way out of a 3 sided box.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justices are appointed officials selected by people we elect. It is called republican government. Other examples are school board presidents and city managers.

The far right only likes elections when they have the numbers.

At the local level those people are easy to get rid of if they do things people don't like. The problem with increasing the power of people at the federal level is that they are harder to get rid of.

ANYONE only likes elections when they have the numbers, Stop being such a hack, Farkey.

Explaining matters constitutionally to you is a joy. Your reaction is hackery.

You couldn't explain your way out of a 3 sided box.

I have put you in one and you are not getting out of it ever on this subject.

 

[martybegan]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

 

[martybegan]

Justices are appointed officials selected by people we elect. It is called republican government. Other examples are school board presidents and city managers.

The far right only likes elections when they have the numbers.

At the local level those people are easy to get rid of if they do things people don't like. The problem with increasing the power of people at the federal level is that they are harder to get rid of.

ANYONE only likes elections when they have the numbers, Stop being such a hack, Farkey.

Explaining matters constitutionally to you is a joy. Your reaction is hackery.

You couldn't explain your way out of a 3 sided box.

I have put you in one and you are not getting out of it ever on this subject.

Prove it, and not "in your own addled mind" proof.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but it was via the amendment process and overwhelming consent, not made up by a bunch of un-elected lawyers.

What's your plan to protect rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

Who want's to abolish it? What I want is for it to stick to its mandate and to stop making new law.

Its 'mandate' allows it to do what nuts like you call 'making new law'.

Who enforces any 'mandate' against the Supreme Court? Cite the mandate. Cite the enforcement mechanism.

If they continue down this path, States will start ignoring the court, and then the Executive Branch will be faced with a dilemma. The court is supposed to interpret law, not make it. You only like it because it gives you an end run around the People to implement things YOU like that screws other people over.

On Marriage Equality. Not likely.

My call is the court will not force States to issue Same sex licenses, but will force them to recognize same sex licenses issued by other States.

 

[martybegan]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marty has been using argumentum ad abusrdum from the beginning.

Really? Prove it.

When you prove your comment about it just above.

Marty, you are stumbling and fumbling here.

Civil Rights are not the purview of the state legislatures and courts.

They are the proper domain of SCOTUS and the national legislature.

The question is what is a civil right, and the definition of "Equal." That's the actual debate your side ignores.

Equal protection under the law is the civil right, and 'sufficiently similar' satisfies the definition of 'equal'.