Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
It's about time there was an uprising against the all powerful federal government. They've been grabbing power that they were never supposed to have for hundreds of years. I think we need some amendments that give the States a much quicker route to knock the feds back when they do what they are not allowed to do. And all these judges, including the Supreme Court, need to have limited terms and an a better check against their actions.

This is not an issue to make such an "uprising" about because it will lead to a very rude awakening for those who want to believe that the majority or any significant portion of the people want the states, any state, to challenge the federal government over this. They will face more backlash than they may want to believe. The majority of young people, in large amounts, even young Republicans, support same sex marriage being legal. The majority of the opposition to same sex marriage being legal is older people. This gives the supporters of making same sex marriage a clear advantage in any violent uprising against the federal government solely based on this case.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
...unless you are a baker who doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake, or a photographer who doesn't want to photograph a gay wedding.

Really, this "it doesn't affect you" BS is just BS, and it doesn't fly any more, it's already affecting people.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with same sex marriage being legal, proven by the fact that none of the most famous cases were in places where same sex couples could legally marry at the time the discrimination occurred.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
If judges are determining the law of hte land, one's vote doesn't count for much.

Your vote is not really supposed to count for much when it comes into conflict with the US Constitution. And in order for the US Constitution to be effective in protecting all rights, it must be interpreted by someone or a group of someones who can then make a decision on how it applies to a given situation.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
I don't care about the 14th amendment. The point is that the law isn't determined by the legislature, it's determined by the "interpretations" of activist judges. We as a nation are legislated to by judges.

That's what bothers me. Not some specific ruling or some specific pet issue.

And that is why there are checks in place to limit the power of the Justices, such as being able to change the US Constitution and ensuring there is a long, tedious (almost always) process for a challenged law to even be heard by the SCOTUS.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
Then they will stop saying so, and that will put an end to your game. Do you want justice or do you just want it your way?

And many already have. If people want to be stupid though and defy a law openly, then they are going to be punished for doing so. No one has said that public accommodation laws can be fully enforced because we cannot absolutely determine why a person is denying another person service. But if they claim that it is because of a reason that they cannot legally do, then that is them being stupid.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
That's where you're wrong. The supreme court isn't granted the power to decide the constitutionality of the laws written by the legislature. If you disagree with that, go find the section of the constitution in which that power is expressly granted to it.

The judiciary grabbed power that was never intended for it.

The original intent of the supreme court was to settle international and inter-state disputes.

Article 3, Section 2 - US CONSTITUTION (outlines the powers of the supreme court as granted by the constitution)

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
•to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
•to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
•to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
•to Controversies between two or more States;
•between a State and Citizens of another State;
•between Citizens of different States;
•between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That's it. I don't see anything in there about "judicial review." That's a power the court granted itself after a massive power grab in the 1800's.

A "power grab" that the majority is perfectly content with allowing them to keep due to the fact that it protects our individual rights from both the state and federal government. There is no other way for the people to non-violently stop the government from infringing on rights or violating the US Constitution, especially if it is the people in government who are trying to infringe upon our rights.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
Actually, yes.

The people elected Obama. The people elected the congress. Together, they passed a bill. If the people don't like that, they can elect new congressmen and a new president.

I would rather have the People make decisions I disagree with than have power taken away from the people by robed judges with powdered wigs, who were not elected and are unaccountable for their actions.

Funny enough, even Obama agrees with me. Or, at least he did back in 2012 when he called the supreme court "an unelected group of people."

Which then makes the Constitution itself nothing more than a piece of paper, useless to us and to protecting our rights.

AGENT J · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
I was thinking about my own case of when I went to get married, and I would be pissed if this went on for more than a few days. Some people are limited on how much time they have to get married and such delays based solely on something like this, which is in violation of a federal order, deserve for those making these decisions to face some punishment and to have to be held accountable for anyone who is financially impacted solely on this decision which is made to violate rights. I hope there are some opposite sex couples who join the suit as well.

Yeah its terrible many people made plans around the federal ruling and its such an injustice to see some of these places try this . . . there will be consequences and rightfully so

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

AGENT J said:
Yeah its terrible many people made plans around the federal ruling and its such an injustice to see some of these places try this . . . there will be consequences and rightfully so

Don't get me wrong, I am already pissed that they would just deny it to same sex couples and the bigotry that involves to do such a thing, but I can see how some opposite sex couples who simply feel "it isn't affecting me" could feel much more inclined to say "it is now affecting me, and it is the people who are trying to deny same sex couples the right to marry who are doing it" over this if they are having to delay their own weddings or finding issues getting their licenses just because some people want to be douchebags.

AGENT J · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
Don't get me wrong, I am already pissed that they would just deny it to same sex couples and the bigotry that involves to do such a thing, but I can see how some opposite sex couples who simply feel "it isn't affecting me" could feel much more inclined to say "it is now affecting me, and it is the people who are trying to deny same sex couples the right to marry who are doing it" over this if they are having to delay their own weddings or finding issues getting their licenses just because some people want to be douchebags.

and you and ALL americans have every right to be pissed

equal rights effects us all and the majority get that

Id love to see how quick most of these bigots would cry if thier rights were infringed on like this, its so hypocritical as an ameircan to not care about equal rights, its shameful

Anthony60 · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
This is not an issue to make such an "uprising" about because it will lead to a very rude awakening for those who want to believe that the majority or any significant portion of the people want the states, any state, to challenge the federal government over this. They will face more backlash than they may want to believe. The majority of young people, in large amounts, even young Republicans, support same sex marriage being legal. The majority of the opposition to same sex marriage being legal is older people. This gives the supporters of making same sex marriage a clear advantage in any violent uprising against the federal government solely based on this case.

You need to realize that the important issue is not SSM, it is the federal government over stepping their authority. That needs to stop. SSM is not worth having a violent uprising over, an all powerful federal government is. Certainly not the first option, but at some point it becomes the only option. We did it before, hopefully we won't have to do it again.

AGENT J · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
1.)You need to realize that the important issue is not SSM, it is the federal government over stepping their authority. That needs to stop.
2.) SSM is not worth having a violent uprising over, an all powerful federal government is.
3.) Certainly not the first option, but at some point it becomes the only option.
4.) We did it before, hopefully we won't have to do it again.

1.) the fed isnt overstepping anythign though they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, protecting the constitution and individual rights. In fact it was the states over stepping and the fed fixed it just like the system was design for.
2.) equal rights is in fact worth that but nobody is threatening that over equal rights.
if people are threatening a violent uprising in opposition to equal rights . . **** em' . . .let them try and if they live it will be in jail cells :shrug:
3.) again see #2
4.) who is we? lol and any again any oppressor of equal rights are more than welcome to challenge it, they will lose

Taylor · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Gaius46 said:
Incorrect. District courts have the power to decide matters of Federal law. That's their job. Higher courts hear appeals to those decisions. The district court's ruling is law until overturned.

District court decisions are non-binding on state courts. I'll keep repeating myself until it sinks in or people learn to research things for themselves rather than pulling opinions out of their arses.

Gaius46 said:
Further you do not have to be a party to an action to be held in contempt. It depends entirely on the wording of the order which reads in part:

The bolded part would seem to apply to any state officer.

No, it does not, as the judge herself has already explained in dismissing contempt complaints earlier this week.

roguenuke · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
You need to realize that the important issue is not SSM, it is the federal government over stepping their authority. That needs to stop. SSM is not worth having a violent uprising over, an all powerful federal government is. Certainly not the first option, but at some point it becomes the only option. We did it before, hopefully we won't have to do it again.

You need to realize that you are wrong. Without the SCOTUS making these decisions, no matter what decisions they are, the US Constitution means pretty much squat. Who would enforce it? Who exactly would determine what was or wasn't constitutional? Can't say it would be the voters/elected officials, since they would be the ones putting the laws into place to begin with. Every law would automatically be constitutional.

We don't have "an all powerful federal government". Especially on this issue. We have a branch of the federal government keeping state governments in check and preventing them from violating the rights of individual US citizens.

I've always believed one of the biggest differences between whether people support individual liberty or state power is in whether they consider themselves a citizen of the US first and their state second or their state first and the US second. There are a lot of people of each.

Taylor · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Deuce said:
No. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified this.

Lol. This is just getting ridiculous. The Supreme Court would have done no such thing because it's nonsense.

Do you at least understand that the decision of one district court is not binding on another?

Wiggen · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Taylor said:
Already answered, and hardly a "doozy" - it's just a simple fact that district court decisions are not binding on state courts.

Well, most of the Constitutional Law Professors in the country disagree with you. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Wiggen · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
Yes, we are the United States, but the emphasis is no longer on the states, a fact that was taken care of well over a century ago in this conflict known to us as the Civil War. That is the main thing the Civil War was about, placing the federal powers above the states' when it comes to particularly individual rights of the people of those states. It is when we became "the United States" as a country, not "the united states" as a group of state. It is why we say the United States "is" rather than "are".

Lots of folks, especially those in Alabama, either have forgotten the Civil War or choose to ignore the consequences, which they managed to do for about a hundred years after its conclusion.

Wiggen · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
You need to realize that the important issue is not SSM, it is the federal government over stepping their authority. That needs to stop. SSM is not worth having a violent uprising over, an all powerful federal government is. Certainly not the first option, but at some point it becomes the only option. We did it before, hopefully we won't have to do it again.

And of course that's the argument the racists and the segregationists made about Brown v. Board of Education and all of the other ways the south was brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century. It's a new century now, but apparently the bigots still haven't learned their lesson.

Montecresto · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
You need to realize that you are wrong. Without the SCOTUS making these decisions, no matter what decisions they are, the US Constitution means pretty much squat. Who would enforce it? Who exactly would determine what was or wasn't constitutional? Can't say it would be the voters/elected officials, since they would be the ones putting the laws into place to begin with. Every law would automatically be constitutional.

We don't have "an all powerful federal government". Especially on this issue. We have a branch of the federal government keeping state governments in check and preventing them from violating the rights of individual US citizens.

I've always believed one of the biggest differences between whether people support individual liberty or state power is in whether they consider themselves a citizen of the US first and their state second or their state first and the US second. There are a lot of people of each.

To the bolded, that's interesting commentary. Which, if either, do you consider superior?

Taylor · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Wiggen said:
Well, most of the Constitutional Law Professors in the country disagree with you. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Except that they don't, but hey don't let that stop you from making things up.

Anthony60 · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
Without the SCOTUS making these decisions, no matter what decisions they are, the US Constitution means pretty much squat. Who would enforce it?

I didn't say the SCOTUS can't take cases on Constitutionality. Who would enforce it? That's the problem. Who is enforcing the Constitution now? Seems to me that nobody is, or just barely, if at all.

That's why Obama can run around threatening Congress that they better make a law that he wants, or he'll do it himself. Absolutely a separation of powers issue. But he doesn't care, who is going to stop him? No one on the left and very few republicans. He is abusing the system.

The Founders just assumed that if the President tried to take Congress's powers, that they would stop him. They never thought that they would just lay down like these idiots. So we are left with no one to stop this stuff.

Paschendale · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
You need to realize that the important issue is not SSM, it is the federal government over stepping their authority. That needs to stop. SSM is not worth having a violent uprising over, an all powerful federal government is. Certainly not the first option, but at some point it becomes the only option. We did it before, hopefully we won't have to do it again.

So you would rebel against a government powerful enough to protect the rights of people you don't like? When you "did it before", it was people rebelling because they didn't want a government to protect any rights for black people. Maybe you should pick something better to rebel over.

Anthony60 · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Wiggen said:
And of course that's the argument the racists and the segregationists made about Brown v. Board of Education and all of the other ways the south was brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century. It's a new century now, but apparently the bigots still haven't learned their lesson.

Even if it is motivated by racism, that does not give the federal government the right to violate the Constitution. Do you understand that? It seems that you don't from your post.

Anthony60 · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Paschendale said:
So you would rebel against a government powerful enough to protect the rights of people you don't like? When you "did it before", it was people rebelling because they didn't want a government to protect any rights for black people. Maybe you should pick something better to rebel over.

I'm referring to the American Revolution, I can't pick a better one than that. Sometimes, it seems that the left can't get skin color off their minds. You should learn to look beyond skin color.

AGENT J · Feb 11, 2015

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Anthony60 said:
Even if it is motivated by racism, that does not give the federal government the right to violate the Constitution. Do you understand that? It seems that you don't from your post.

the fed isnt violating the constitution in this case at all, its up holding it, so your strawman fails

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

roguenuke

roguenuke

roguenuke

roguenuke

roguenuke

roguenuke

roguenuke

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

roguenuke

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Anthony60

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Taylor

roguenuke

Taylor

Wiggen

Wiggen

Wiggen

Montecresto

Taylor

Anthony60

Paschendale

Uncanny

Anthony60

Anthony60

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Uncanny

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency