SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[TheOldSchool]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Once a culture starts down the road to depravity it doesn't stop. It ends.

Good riddance to it though...I am actually surprised ANYONE seriously thought the gang of 9 tyrants was seriously NOT going to legalize sodomites "marrying"....Shit even the most ardent marriage supporter knew that was going to happen...

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

I'll try not to take too much joy in your bitterness when gay marriage is the law of the land. Not too hard though.

 

[Preacher]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Once a culture starts down the road to depravity it doesn't stop. It ends.

Good riddance to it though...I am actually surprised ANYONE seriously thought the gang of 9 tyrants was seriously NOT going to legalize sodomites "marrying"....Shit even the most ardent marriage supporter knew that was going to happen...

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

I'll try not to take too much joy in your bitterness when gay marriage is the law of the land. Not too hard though.

You act like I didn't know it was coming already? What a retard..oh and the opinion of a very tiny minority is not law its dictatorial policy its amusing you idiots still think we live in a "republic" or some such crap...its an oligarchy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Once a culture starts down the road to depravity it doesn't stop. It ends.

Good riddance to it though...I am actually surprised ANYONE seriously thought the gang of 9 tyrants was seriously NOT going to legalize sodomites "marrying"....Shit even the most ardent marriage supporter knew that was going to happen...

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

I'll try not to take too much joy in your bitterness when gay marriage is the law of the land. Not too hard though.

You act like I didn't know it was coming already? What a retard..oh and the opinion of a very tiny minority is not law its dictatorial policy its amusing you idiots still think we live in a "republic" or some such crap...its an oligarchy.

Here this should help you:

 

[Preacher]

Yawn.

 

[mdk]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Once a culture starts down the road to depravity it doesn't stop. It ends.

Good riddance to it though...I am actually surprised ANYONE seriously thought the gang of 9 tyrants was seriously NOT going to legalize sodomites "marrying"....Shit even the most ardent marriage supporter knew that was going to happen...

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Try clicking your heels together the next time and maybe that will make it true. Buena Suerte!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Odium, report to Mainstream Central for deprogramming.

 

[Silhouette]

It's going to happen folks, like it or not (and I don't by the way) !

Justice Thomas objects to court's signal on gay marriage

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is inappropriately signaling it intends to clear the way for gay marriage across the nation, JusticeClarence Thomas complained Monday in a stinging dissent to the court's refusal to block the start of same-sex marriages in Alabama.

Bitterly objecting to Monday's action, Thomas provided a rare insider's perspective on the widely held view that the court's embrace of gay marriage is a done deal.

Thomas filed a dissenting opinion after his colleagues rejected Alabama's plea to put a hold on same-sex marriages in the state until the Supreme Court resolves the issue nationwide in a few months.

He criticized his fellow justices for looking "the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws," rather than following the customary course of leaving those laws in place until the court answers an important constitutional question.

"This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution of that question," Thomas wrote in an opinion that was joined byJustice Antonin Scalia. "This is not the proper way" for the court to carry out its role under the Constitution, he wrote, "and, it is indecorous for this court to pretend that it is."

The opinion was remarkable less for the legal result it suggested than for its open criticism of fellow justices.

Justice Thomas objects to court s signal on gay marriage - Yahoo News

Hmm...

A "bitter" divide within the ranks of the Justices on whether or not the 56 times it was reiterated in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marraige in the interim at least is up to the states to decide?

I'd hardly call that a "done deal". What I would call it is "the gloves coming off and the sleeves getting rolled up". Don't think they'll be rubber-stamping this one..

I hold the opposite opinion and conclusion of the OP. What this means for those who read between the lines is that there is going to be a very ...shall we say..."animated"...debate on this topic; whereas the defeatists see this as a signal somehow of a passive, majority assent to a federal stamp on "marriage equality" for polygamists?

Oh, yeah, and homosexuals, and...

Don't hold your breath on that one. It ain't over till the fat lady sings and it looks like it's going to be one hell of an aria

 

[JakeStarkey]

You continue to misread Windsor, deliberately, as we all know here.

The vote will be 6-3, even possibly 7-2, although I really don't think Alito will vote in the affirmative but rather in the negative and then ignore it.

The majority is not on your side, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the link to Thomas' words, with Scalia getting his back. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1658000/thomasdissent.pdf

You know, his/their logic is flawless. The Court has no business deciding the merits of a case without hearing it first. And the last opinion the Court gave the public on the question of who gets to decide on gay marraige was reiterated 56 times in Windsor "the states do, now and always since the founding of the country"...

The real, and I feel impeachable danger that these rogue Justices are stepping our country into is that the nation will get the idea that there really isn't justice. That there really isn't a system of laws and protocols that will protect the Union that they can rely on. If the Justices get to hold what is essentially a shadow kangaroo court on the question of gay marriage, what topic will they do so on next?

LGBTs shouldn't be celebrating this dangerous precedent. Because if Congress does impeach any Justice so engaged illegally and irreverently for the position they hold as the last bastion of appeal to IMPARTIAL justice, they may be replaced by the next GOP administration/Congress by a panel of conservative Justices who then might find that a reversal of undue process is in order..

This is dangerous territory the Court is treading on. And Thomas' & Scalia's anger is well founded..[/QUOTE]

yet another Federal District Judgecasts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in

United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities...Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.... In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months....I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.

That bit in bold is grounds for impeachment. Those rogue Justices better keep a very sharp eye on the next election cycle..The separation and limitations of powers in our country are the ONLY thing that sets us apart from a dictatorship.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The new Dred Scott decision is looming and the homo bigots are ecstatic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are strange. There will be no impeachment, Sil; there will be no Sil-type partial justice.

 

[Skylar]

Once a culture starts down the road to depravity it doesn't stop. It ends.

Unless it doesn't.

 

[Silhouette]

For a crowd assuring the public that gay marriage is popular with the majority, you folks SURE have a vested interest in keeping it from a vote from the separate states...

Weird..

 

[Skylar]

It's going to happen folks, like it or not (and I don't by the way) !

Justice Thomas objects to court's signal on gay marriage

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is inappropriately signaling it intends to clear the way for gay marriage across the nation, JusticeClarence Thomas complained Monday in a stinging dissent to the court's refusal to block the start of same-sex marriages in Alabama.

Bitterly objecting to Monday's action, Thomas provided a rare insider's perspective on the widely held view that the court's embrace of gay marriage is a done deal.

Thomas filed a dissenting opinion after his colleagues rejected Alabama's plea to put a hold on same-sex marriages in the state until the Supreme Court resolves the issue nationwide in a few months.

He criticized his fellow justices for looking "the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws," rather than following the customary course of leaving those laws in place until the court answers an important constitutional question.

"This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution of that question," Thomas wrote in an opinion that was joined byJustice Antonin Scalia. "This is not the proper way" for the court to carry out its role under the Constitution, he wrote, "and, it is indecorous for this court to pretend that it is."

The opinion was remarkable less for the legal result it suggested than for its open criticism of fellow justices.

Justice Thomas objects to court s signal on gay marriage - Yahoo News

You mean Justice Scalia Jr.

Oh, Scalia was even clearer that gay marriage opponents are so completely fucked:

"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. "

Justice Scalia in dissent Windsor v. US

Note the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. And this was in 2013. He knows what's coming. As Thomas' little tantrum demonstrated, Thomas knows what's coming.

4 months til June, folks.

 

[Skylar]

For a crowd assuring the public that gay marriage is popular with the majority, you folks SURE have a vested interest in keeping it from a vote from the separate states...

Weird..

Laughing......tell us again how Gallup is making up all of its numbers regarding the majority support for gay marriage. I need another chuckle.

And can we take it from your sudden demand that we should be able to strip rights from folks with a majority vote that you're *finally* coming to understand what the Windsor ruling really meant? If you're not sure, just let Scalia clue you in.

 

[Silhouette]

Again...why all the need for federal intervention on a "popular sure thing"?

Scalia signed on with Thomas' scathing dissent though...weirder still...

 

[Skylar]

A "bitter" divide within the ranks of the Justices on whether or not the 56 times it was reiterated in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marraige in the interim at least is up to the states to decide?

Subject to constitutional guarantees. Pretending that constitutional guarantees don't exist doesn't mean the courts must pretend with you. It just demonstrates how deeply in denial you are. And how you'll ignore anything, even the Windsor decision, to believe as you wish.

I'd hardly call that a "done deal".

Scalia does:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

Note the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. You literally have to ignore Scalia and Thomas to believe as you do. And they're the two staunchest opponents of gay marriage on the court.

I hold the opposite opinion and conclusion of the OP. What this means for those who read between the lines is that there is going to be a very ...shall we say..."animated"...debate on this topic; whereas the defeatists see this as a signal somehow of a passive, majority assent to a federal stamp on "marriage equality" for polygamists?

Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? Because Scalia already shat a juicy deuce upon your 'reading between the lines' nonsense. Say it with me, Silo...

....."inevitable".

 

[Silhouette]

Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? Because Scalia already shat a juicy deuce upon your 'reading between the lines' nonsense. Say it with me, Silo...

....."inevitable".

You're not even slightly concerned that a US Supreme Court Justice would call an open question of law yet to be Decided in his Court a done deal?

Fascism is the hallmark of the cult of LGBT. I'm not even sure why I'm surprised at your celebration of the erosion of the American justice system anymore..

This is a message to my high school American Government teacher: "Dear Mr. ____ I'm so sorry I complained that talking poli-sci was boring and that I hated your class. I now know why you said it was maybe the most important class we would take in all our school years. Please accept my humblest apologies."

 

[Skylar]

Again...why all the need for federal intervention on a "popular sure thing"?

Scalia signed on with Thomas' scathing dissent though...weirder still...

Its only 'weird' if you ignore Scalia's dissent in Windsor....where he insists the Windsor Court's position take on state prohibitions of same sex marriage were 'beyond mistaking'. And the courts using the same rationale in Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

If you don't ignore Scalia's dissent, then it all makes perfect sense. Once again, you allow your willful ignorance to pointlessly confuse you. Weird.

 

[Skylar]

Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? Because Scalia already shat a juicy deuce upon your 'reading between the lines' nonsense. Say it with me, Silo...

....."inevitable".

You're not even slightly concerned that a US Supreme Court Justice would call an open question of law yet to be Decided in his Court a done deal?

And what would concern me about Scalia recognizing the court's take on state same sex marriage bans? The man works with the rest of the court. He has a pretty good idea how they'll vote on these issues. And he is of the opinion that the court's position is 'beyond mistaking'. And the court applying the rationale of the Windsor ruling to overturn same sex marriage bans is 'inevitable'.

What's weird is that you think you know better than Scalia does. That's just bizarre.

Fascism is the hallmark of the cult of LGBT. I'm not even sure why I'm surprised at your celebration of the erosion of the American justice system anymore..

Laughing...and here it comes. The increasingly hysteric pseudo-legal gibberish as the reality of the situation starts to sink in. With the exact histrionics that you've offered us on everything from Prop 8 to Ebola once again splattered all over your posts.

The cries of 'fascism' has started already. Claims that the judicial system has 'eroded'. I can only imagine the panty shitting hysterics that we'll see from you come June. But I'll have a comfy seat and a tub of popcorn ready for the show when you finally pop.

And one more time, letting the word just roll around in your mouth a little before passing your lips....

.....'inevitable'.