- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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.
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.
Except that they don't, but hey don't let that stop you from making things up.
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.
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.
Well, most of the Constitutional Law Professors in the country disagree with you. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
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.
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.
No, it does not, as the judge herself has already explained in dismissing contempt complaints earlier this week.
Yeah, the Bible does have it's place in the US. A few more generations and you, or people like you will be muslims and they will like it. It's not going away and they aren't open for discussing.
You might want to look at what the 1st amendment was really about regarding the separation of church and state.
The catholic church in England was dictating political policy to the state.....
...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.
Are you saying we are less morally bankrupt today?
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?
A ruling that is (for now) non-binding. Feel free to file a complaint for contempt, but it will be dismissed same as the others.
You mean the American Revolution where progressives rebelled against aristocracy and conservatives stayed loyal to the king? You might want to check that "we" stuff, then. The only rebellion that someone you could call "we" participated in took place in the 1860s, not the 1770s.
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.
No, it does not, as the judge herself has already explained in dismissing contempt complaints earlier this week.
Also known as understanding the law.He's latching onto the difference between an order and a decision and resting his entire argument on it.
Yes, orders are enforceable, but that doesn't mean that district court decisions are binding on state courts. Probate judges are free to ignore her opinion (as many are doing now) but not free to ignore an order (which may come down later this week). I can't easily link the opinion right now because I'm on my phone (someone quoted it earlier in this thread, maybe WorldWatcher?).I'm sorry that is plainly nonsense. Federal district court orders are enforceable against the state. This is a Federal Constitutional question which gives the district court jurisdiction and since the Federal Constitution supersedes state law her decision is binding on the state.
Do you have a link to her opinion? I'd like to read it for myself.
[/B]
To the bolded, that's interesting commentary. Which, if either, do you consider superior?
And it is apparent from your post that you don't understand the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, or the fact that the Civil War ended this bull**** debate between the rights of states and the pre-eminence of the Federal Government and the Federal Courts. Sadly, you are not alone in denying reality.
Yes, orders are enforceable, but that doesn't mean that district court decisions are binding on state courts. Probate judges are free to ignore her opinion (as many are doing now) but not free to ignore an order (which may come down later this week). I can't easily link the opinion right now because I'm on my phone (someone quoted it earlier in this thread, maybe WorldWatcher?).
May I suggest emigration as a possible solution for you?
Yeah, well... also true of over half the states in the country as well as Federal district courts, circuit courts, and even the Supreme Court. So... you're not really one to talk about a "dearth of the educated."Here is a major problem with the judicial branch in alabama, aside from its total disrespect for the constitution and federal authority: The state allows judges to not even be a lawyer! I guess there's a severe dearth of the educated in alabama who will pander enough to bigoted voters to achieve election.
Yeah, but with bigots around who conveniently forget history, it's hard for those of us on the left to let them get away with 'memory loss'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?