What the **** are you blathering about now. There is nothing to reconcile . Of course the Feds must abide by the Constitution. Again, your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only interpretation and not the prevailing one.
When the **** did I say that it was. ?
Read the cotus...the legislative branch is vested with the job of creating laws, not the judicial branch.
I did not say anything about the feds authority to regulate marriage is absolute . I said that the states authority IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Is it possible that you do not understand the difference? Are you getting more stupid as we go, or just playing more games?
Legislating from the bench is interpreting a cotus to mean something it wasn't intended to mean. The courts can't say "gay marriage is the law", they CAN say "the state trying to ban gay marriage violates equal protection according to the cotus, and thus cannot be upheld"
I would agree that it was law fool. I would not like it, but I would have to accept it as law. Nice try with your "gottcha " bullshit
I know it's not the prevailing one, because over the years, people have gotten away from it, and we've allowed the Fed gov to run roughshod over it. Again, you'd love nothing more than to get rid of it so you can have your one party rule.
Really?..are you saying you're not on board with Biden when he says he is going to codify roe into law?
??? We've been arguing for...3 weeks now? About how you are saying that scotus can make laws, and that the federal gov have the authority to make gay marriage law. You've been clear that states rights are not absolute, which must mean you think the Fed gov has more of a jurisdiction
Really? You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.
Case law!! Get a grip!! Star Decisis. Binding precident that stood for 49 years until Trumps far right theocrates tossed it in the trash.
No shit?? Thats what they did. Your point??
How about "there are no absolutes" I have tried to explain to you how that works but it has become clear that you are too obtuse to get it.
My point is that I would consider it case law even if I don't agree with it. It is how things work. Try to get your head around that fact
I KNOW!! case law, you say it has the force of law, so it might as well be the same thing. Crap, let's just get rid of states rights then if the fed gov and the courts can simply just overrule the state whenever they want.....
My point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent". It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done. If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law. What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.
Ok...if there are no absolutes, then who has the ultimate authority of the legality of gay marriage, or abortion?
Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.
I agree that they think cotus is a living breathing document, and thus subject to change based on what they want that day.
