Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[ThisIsMe]

Yes you have been consitent in saying that, but you also have said that the SCOTUS protects gay rights. They do it by way of case law but you refuse to call it law

No, I never said scotus protects gay rights, I said COTUS, as written, protects gay rights, and scotus can make sure that protection is applied to the people.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Cut the crap with the doublespeak already!

?? What double speak? Lol

 

[ThisIsMe]

And here we hav it! Queeers? Now you have shown your tru colors. You are so full of shit with your gay rights bullshit!

Uh...that wasn't me that posted that.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've not posted any contradictions. Please list some of them if I have.

You can’t be serious! Like I said, trying to pin you down is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall
Rember this....? Yes you still have Three problems. You have not adequately addressed any of this

1. You insist that Obergefell was a proper decision but that Roe was not and that abortion should be left to the states, but you can’t explain how Obergefell differs from Roe'
Then you said: “No, I never said scotus protects gay rights, I said COTUS, as written, protects gay rights, and scotus can make sure that protection is applied to the people.” Word salad! ! The court does not protect rights, but the constitution does, BUT the court applies the constitution? What the ****!!

2. And you insist that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law At the same time state that certain rights are protected by the 14th amendment while being unable to explain how tat happens unless there is a recognition of case law

3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adaptable to unforeseen
Example. You said:” Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time. issues and able to find be, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognize the enumerated rights”
Double speak!

And there is more:

ThisIsMe said:
Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.

I replied: You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether state’s rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually be protected from a state that violates their rights

And:
You wrote: “No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.”
I replied: After insisting that you support the right of people to love and live as they see fit, and that you do not think that states should prohibit gay marriage, but now YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT??

I could go on but I am not going to waste anymore of my time with your convoluted made up bullshit. There is absolutely NO theory of constitutional law that can make sense out of any of this.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Uh...that wasn't me that posted that.....

My Bad!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

?? What double speak? Lol

See post 1624

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's exactly right. The cotus is fixed, but its protections are wide. As written, it is future proof, it is not until people start trying to change it does it lose its ability to be future proof.

Roe did not chage the constitution. It was interpreted to mean that women had a right to privacy based on the provisions of the 14th Amenedment. That is what they INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Show me where the legislative body wrote, and passed that law?

Just stop with the bullshit already.I did not say that it was legislated and you know it. This is just another example of you word games

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cotus law is merely precedent. We've seen that precedent is not always good. Take roe for example, since it was overturned, that is now precedent, do you agree that it is good precedent? If scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law??

Mearly precident.?? It is case law that established a precident. Do I think that overturning Roe is "good precedent"? You know god damned well that I do not.

You ask ....if scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law?? It depends on what you mean by "accept, I would accept the fact that it is law . Would I like it? No. Would I speak out against it. Hell yes

I know what you are and what you are doing. You are basically an anti federal government/ small government conservative

However, at the same time you are trying to come off as being moderate and reasonable with your half hearted, conditional support of gay rights and claim that you belive that the constitution protects everyone rights. You are still playing both sides of the fence but you are fooling no one, except perhpps your self.

Your invented theories of constitutional law make no sense, and I challange you to come up with an established theory that supports your views

 

[Bob Blaylock]

See post 1624

See post 125.

 

[Ringo]

No comments...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

?? What double speak? Lol

I see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.

Actually I have tired, but I do have to sum things up in some sort of comprehensive way and then I am done with you. Otherwise this can go on forever and it already is a colossal waste of time and energy. Neither of us is going to convince the other to embrace our vastly differing views of government and the role of the courts. Moreover , your views are so convoluted, bizarre, contradictory and half baked that I am tired of even trying to make sense out of them.

You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot. However, beyond that, trying to understand you is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle while tripping on acid. As I said, your views about the role and purpose of the courts and how the Constitution is applied to the issues of the day have no footing in any known Constitutional philosophy. In addition, I do believe that you are playing a sick game of duplicity where you are trying to appear to be sort of liberal while being an apologist for reactionary policies and decisions in the guise of defending the constitution.
So, I am finished trying to understand you or bothering to counter your nonsense. Rather I will close with the clearest account of what I believe and why I believe it, and you can do with it what you will. You can choose to learn from it, or you can choose to continue on down the yellow brick road in blissful ignorance

I am a product of the progressive movement that goes back to Teddy Roosevelt in the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government was more than an end in itself. The progressives came to understand that government can and should serve the purpose of making the lives of citizens better by expanding right and providing needed services. By extension of that philosophy, I believe that the courts play a vital role in that endeavor. For much of history, it has in fact fulfilled that vital role although there have been periods of pull back such as the one we are in now, after Trump packed the court with theocratic conservatives

Those on the right rail against “legislating from the bench” and judicial activism when rulings do not go their way. However, the fact is that both liberals and conservative engage in judicial activism. The difference is that the “left” uses judicial activism to move the country forward and enhance the quality of life for all people. The “right” used it to advance a repressive and regressive agenda such as was the case with the reversal of Roe. Other examples include rolling back voting rights, environmental protections, and expanding the meaning of religious rights to allow discrimination in the name of religion. And all of that is done in the guise of being true to the constitutions and small government.

However, there is more than one way to be true to the constitution. You can either adhere to conservative originalism and textualism and embrace the theory that the only rights are the enumerated rights, or you can be a progressive liberal and believe that the document is open to interpretation that allows additional rights to flow from those stated in the original text and the amendments. But I have never encountered anyone before you who has tried to straddle both divergent points of view, and to do it so clumsily. Nor have I ever before came across anyone who denies the reality of case law, binding precedents and the tradition of Star Decisis . Even the most conservative Justices on SCOTUS-while trampling on it at times-still understand that it is real.

Regarding the size of government, while conservatives decry big government as bad because it supposedly robs people of their freedom, that mantra is rings hollow with me for a number of reasons

For me the issue is not the size of government, but rater what government does and who benefits from it, and who is harmed . A large and strong cental government and an a progressive court can do much good for the people as we have seen over the last century and more.

In addition, the fact is that this is a Constitutional Republic consisting of 50 states that-to a point- have dominion over much of their own affairs, and many of those states have historically abused their authority necessitating intervention by the Federal Government or the courts. It is folly to advocate for a weak, hands off central government –that supposedly affords more freedom to the people- while allowing the states to take away freedoms. Lastly, conservatives are hypocritical in their condemnation of big government and judicial activism in they are quick to use the power of government to take away freedoms when it suits them such as privacy, marriage, voting rights and much more.

If you have anything more to say, try to say it in a coherent and organized manner, using reason and logic or don’t bother

 

[Staidhup]

We are a freaking Republic! Let the individual states decide.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We are a freaking Republic! Let the individual states decide.

We are a freaking CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The states must abide by the rule of law. States rights are not absolute. n Read the 14th Amendment and read the Obergefell decision,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.

Surely will have a difficult time understanding this, but most of us who participate on this forum have lives outside of it. We have jobs, we have families, we have responsibilities, we have other hobbies. We have other things to do than spend all of our time and energy arguing on those forum with a pathetic, depraved pervert/tyrant such as yourself.

You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot.

So were the great men who founded this nation, and who wrote its Constitution. That's why the Constitution lists a very limited set of powers delegated to the central government, and states, in the Tenth Amendment, that all powers not so delegated thereto are reserved to the states or to the people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We are a freaking Republic! Let the individual states decide.

So gay people, who have the misfortune of living in a backwrd, shit hole red stae should be subjected to the whims of knuckle draging moronic bigots?

 

[ThisIsMe]

You can’t be serious! Like I said, trying to pin you down is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall
Rember this....? Yes you still have Three problems. You have not adequately addressed any of this

1. You insist that Obergefell was a proper decision but that Roe was not and that abortion should be left to the states, but you can’t explain how Obergefell differs from Roe'
Then you said: “No, I never said scotus protects gay rights, I said COTUS, as written, protects gay rights, and scotus can make sure that protection is applied to the people.” Word salad! ! The court does not protect rights, but the constitution does, BUT the court applies the constitution? What the ****!!

2. And you insist that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law At the same time state that certain rights are protected by the 14th amendment while being unable to explain how tat happens unless there is a recognition of case law

3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adaptable to unforeseen
Example. You said:” Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time. issues and able to find be, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognize the enumerated rights”
Double speak!

And there is more:

ThisIsMe said:
Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.

I replied: You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether state’s rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually be protected from a state that violates their rights

And:
You wrote: “No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.”
I replied: After insisting that you support the right of people to love and live as they see fit, and that you do not think that states should prohibit gay marriage, but now YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT??

I could go on but I am not going to waste anymore of my time with your convoluted made up bullshit. There is absolutely NO theory of constitutional law that can make sense out of any of this.

I've answered every one of those questions exhaustively. You can go back and read the last ....# of pages to see this. You apparently just don't like my answers?

Yes, I support people's rights to live and love whom and how they want. Yes, I support the states rights to make decisions that are not part of the cotus' designation of powers to the federal government. I don't see how those two things are contradictory? Because you think a state would ban gay marriage? Again, I don't think that's happening, but I'd it did, that would be bad because it would be a political death nail for those politicians, and, the supreme court would strike it down anyway based on the application of the 14A. What I don't support is the courts making law, as is what happened with roe, or rather, they made a decision on privacy, and left wing activists and our government said it was law, it never was. I also don't support the federal government making laws about marriage, because, again, that is not their jurisdiction. The cotus does not give the federal.government the right to regulate marriage. Thus, it must then be a states rights, and a people's rights.

Look, I'm just trying to preserve the correct hierarchy of government, because so many people have turned it around all these years. It was never intended that federal government be the overriding power and the states and the people to be subservient to it. It was supposed to be a tool to help people in specific affairs that could be applied equally across the states. Beyond that, the states and the people were supposed to govern themselves.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Roe did not chage the constitution. It was interpreted to mean that women had a right to privacy based on the provisions of the 14th Amenedment. That is what they INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION

Yeah, thats what it was supposed to mean, but what happened? All of a sudden it was deemed to be "law", and for the next 50 years, it was said to be "settled law".

Now, you are coming here saying it is law because it has the "force of law". I disagree completely that it was law or that scotus decisions have the "force of law", unless you are simply meaning that scotus decisions can ENFORCE the law, then I agree with you. Scotus can overrule a state if they are in violation of a law by using the application to the cotus to see if it's constitutional. But, if you are suggesting that the scotus can legislate from the bench by interpreting the constitution to grant new privileges, i.e.. saying that abortion is now the law and all states must allow it, then no, scotus doesn't have that right. All they can do is say "people have a right to privacy based on the constitution".

 

[ThisIsMe]

Mearly precident.?? It is case law that established a precident. Do I think that overturning Roe is "good precedent"? You know god damned well that I do not.

You ask ....if scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law?? It depends on what you mean by "accept, I would accept the fact that it is law . Would I like it? No. Would I speak out against it. Hell yes

I know what you are and what you are doing. You are basically an anti federal government/ small government conservative

However, at the same time you are trying to come off as being moderate and reasonable with your half hearted, conditional support of gay rights and claim that you belive that the constitution protects everyone rights. You are still playing both sides of the fence but you are fooling no one, except perhpps your self.

Your invented theories of constitutional law make no sense, and I challange you to come up with an established theory that supports your views

Do I think that overturning Roe is "good precedent"? You know god damned well that I do not.

Ok then, so now we have established that not all court precedent is good, and sometimes they get it wrong. But you see, you and I disagree with what scotus got wrong. I say cotus was wrong with the roe ruling, you say they were wrong for overturning it. Well, both are precedent...so, doesn't that kinda show that making precedent into law is not a good idea?

You ask ....if scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law?? It depends on what you mean by "accept, I would accept the fact that it is law . Would I like it? No. Would I speak out against it. Hell yes

Then I'd disagree with you, it wouldt be law, it would just be a decision based on the 14A, and would then return to the states. Obergefell is different on that the court didn't make a ruling that was then deemed to be law, as you all did with roe, scotus simply applied the decision of gay marriage to the 14A and decided that under equal protection, it is a person's civil right to marry whom they want. If that's all there is to it, then we're good.


I'm not anti government, I'm for small government. Yes, I want the government to do its job, nothing more. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No comments...

Ok, so, what are you trying to say?