1 - 10 Next
There is absolutely no basis for saying that scotus will strike all marriage laws next. In the Windsor doma case, scotus said the opposite just last year. They emphasized over 7 pages that STATEs define marriage and then mentioned that fed courts are to stay out of it. There were no exceptions that reversed BAKER v. NELSON ,scotus binding precedent that states may ban ssm. Therefore, Windsor doma case actually bolsters Baker, which is what these lower court judges are missing. There is no other way to read Windsor and baker together, logically, as we must, since they are both still good law. Only scotus can reverese Bker, not the lower courts. Lower courts are still bound by Baker. This whole campaign in the courts, and these lower court decisions are all highly dishonest and lawless. They don't want to get the law correct, and follow scotus precedent, even though they are violating their oath in not following Baker. The lower courts are just lawlessly doing what they want. Scotus won't change what they said in the doma case, just two years later. That would make scotus an even bigger laughing stock than the liberal/subversives on scotus already are. People who say otherwise, simply don't understand what scotus said and didn't say in the Windsor doma case.
Also, the const's genius is that it can be changed by allowing amendments, and we amended it to clearly abolish slavery in the US forever, in the Thirteenth amendment. Prior to that, the const did not have legal protection for slavery, notwithstanding the judicial activist Dred Scott decision.
No, it's just preferable if the kids start out with a mom and dad.
Except that scotus has already ruled that there is no const right to same sex marriage, see Baker v. Nelson, still the law of the land. Civic 101, not every distinction in law violates the equal protection clause, because all law has distinctions, interpretation is necessary. This article is false. Scotus only struck part of doma because the feds weren't respecting the state's power to define marriage. Scotus says that the states define marriage, and the only exception they cited was Loving v. Virginia, a case correctly striking bans on interracial marriage, but also made clear that the right to marry is one man, one woman insofar as the Loving case referenced the crucial aspect in marriage of procreation. Therefore, when these lawless district courts strike these bans, they are doing so quite dishonestly. That is particularly true, since scotus precedent of BAKER v. NELSON is still in place upholding bans on same sex marriage. That case is still the law of the land, and only scotus can reverse it!!! These lawless district courts should be overturned. This particular "judge" made it easier for himself, by disallowing NOM from intervening into the case, so that the judge won't have to hear that he is violating the law of BAKER v. NELSON!! funny how liberal subversive groups like the aclu and planned parenthood (herod-hood) get to have standing, but not conservative groups!!! LOL The bias and lawlessness of our court system has made it a big joke!!!! These lawless/dishonest district courts, who are ignoring scotus precedent will be reversed. One was already reversed in Nebraska on this issue. no appellate court has ever stricken bans on same sex marriage, and scotus has upheld the bans in Baker, and in last year's Windsor case, said that states define marriage, and fed courts stay out!!! These district courts are just doing what they want, instead of following the law, all in violation of their oath. someone needs to tell them that Baker has not been overruled by scotus, and only scotus can overrule it.
Except that scotus has already ruled that there is no const right to same sex marriage, see Baker v. Nelson, still the law of the land. Civic 101, not every distinction in law violates the equal protection clause, because all law has distinctions, interpretation is necessary. This article is false. Scotus only struck part of doma because the feds weren't respecting the state's power to define marriage. Scotus says that the states define marriage, and the only exception they cited was Loving v. Virginia, a case correctly striking bans on interracial marriage, but also made clear that the right to marry is one man, one woman insofar as the Loving case referenced the crucial aspect in marriage of procreation. Therefore, when these lawless district courts strike these bans, they are doing so quite dishonestly. That is particularly true, since scotus precedent of BAKER v. NELSON is still in place upholding bans on same sex marriage. That case is still the law of the land, and only scotus can reverse it!!! These lawless district courts should be overturned. This particular "judge" made it easier for himself, by disallowing NOM from intervening into the case, so that the judge won't have to hear that he is violating the law of BAKER v. NELSON!! funny how liberal subversive groups like the aclu and planned parenthood (herod-hood) get to have standing, but not conservative groups!!! LOL The bias and lawlessness of our court system has made it a big joke!!!! The decision striking bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia was correct, because the framers were targeting racism as a prohibition in law, but not one man, one woman marriage, which is why scotus upheld that latter definition in BAKER v. NELSON. apples and oranges.
Scotus has already ruled that there is no const right to same sex marriage, see Baker v. Nelson, still the law of the land. Civic 101, not every distinction in law violates the equal protection clause, because all law has distinctions, interpretation is necessary. Scotus only struck part of doma because the feds weren't respecting the state's power to define marriage. Scotus says that the states define marriage, and the only exception they cited was Loving v. Virginia, a case correctly striking bans on interracial marriage, but also made clear that the right to marry is one man, one woman insofar as the Loving case referenced the crucial aspect in marriage of procreation. Therefore, when these lawless district courts strike these bans, they are doing so quite dishonestly. That is particularly true, since scotus precedent of BAKER v. NELSON is still in place upholding bans on same sex marriage. That case is still the law of the land, and only scotus can reverse it!!! These lawless district courts should be overturned. The "judge" in Oregon made it easier for himself, by disallowing NOM from intervening into the case, so that the judge won't have to hear that he is violating the law of BAKER v. NELSON!! funny how liberal subversive groups like the aclu and planned parenthood (herod-hood) get to have standing, but not conservative groups!!! LOL The bias and lawlessness of our court system has made it a big joke!!!!
They need term limits, and the great Judge Robert Bork had another great idea: Allow congress to override scotus decisions, like passing a resolution in each house. This would require a const amendment, of course, but better than having to go back and amend every time the scotus comes up with another idiotic ruling. Why do we assume members of scotus are the only one's capable of understanding law, when the lib members are there only to twist the law to create their favorite outcomes?!!
I always love the nonsense from libs who say that the framer's understanding doesn't control interpretation, because they are dead. Well, of course, if that's the case, then no point even using the LANGUAGE they left behind, in the first place. Does their view mean that judges don't interpret a will in light of what the testator wanted, because the testator is dead, too?!! LOL Nonsense is nonsense, no matter how heavily weighted with judicial robes. They want their own dictatorship, the libs, and best place to do it is on scotus, because they act like dictators, not up for election and they decide what the const means, which trumps all other law, whether they follow the const or apply a fraudulent const that is really only their personal liberal beliefs.
Interpretation IS required, but that doesn't mean that the const's meaning changes by osmosis over time. It is only a living document to the extent that principles in the const apply to new technology within the same meaning and scope of the principle listed. Th same scope of speech to tv and radio as the free speech clause's scope's meaning, through, interpretation, supports. EG, tv and radio can be regulated re obscenity, because the scope of free speech doesn't extend to obscenity. You are mixing your metaphors above, as you are just making excuses for judges to import their own views into the const, the very definition of dictatorship. It's laughable that Sotomayor, an Obama Marxist in robes, can say that a provision that requires complete race neutrality is in violation of the const for being racist!!! LOL!! Typical liberal illogic!! Tech may make interpretation difficult in some circumstances, but we have no tech problem here. Racism is still racism under the equal protection clause that requires race neutrality. It's an easy case.
Exactly correct!! We are increasingly being governed by 5 unelected judges acting as our politburo, with them ruling under the GUISE of the const. There is no basis for striking traditionally defined one man, one woman marriage in the const, but scotus allowed to stand the ca federal court's decision striking traditional marriage. It is beyond debate that the framers never intended to strike traditional marriage.
1 - 10 Next