User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 5:53:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ballot box soap box and now jury box Your last box is all fucked up. CARTRIDGE BOX |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 6:23:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't a civil union a contract? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. Isn't a civil union a contract? Sure and straight people aren't prohibited.from executing them. So rights were not equally applied. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 6:38:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prenuptial agreements have been around for how long? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not too long ago, I believed the same thing. However as I watched what people on both sides of the issue said and did I changed my mind. Marriage is a right, and gays have the same right. It's a legal contract issued and dissolved by the state. Churches can do as they please WRT who they marry or not, but states don't have the right or power to deny access to that contract to two consenting adults. Same difference to me. I don't care. It's not like it has never been done before, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. A contract between two or two hundred is between them. MYOB. Isn't a civil union a contract? Prenuptial agreements have been around for how long? centuries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 6:47:10 PM EDT
[#4]
A little inside baseball
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 6:54:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always assumed she was a lesbian anyway. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Your assumption has a high degree of probability to the affirmative. (IMO) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:33:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no contradiction. At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice. Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes. It's a completely different world. so you are saying they do mushrooms before casting their vote on a subject before the court in order to receive this higher attainability of knowledge, got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:41:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. A really good.read that.won't be read enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:52:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol well of course not. Because they say things you like. Everyone here only hates "activist" courts when they go against their own opinions and ideology. The leftist sights literally parrot the exact same responses when it's something they don't like. Here is the bottom line.....there shouldn't be such a thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" judge. A cases outcome should not be predetermined by the political make up of the court, as everyone here seems to prefer (well until it's 5 liberals and 4 conservatives at least). A fucking judge should be 100% unbiased and nonpartisan. They should interpret the cases without prejudice and rule on the letter and constitutionality of the law, no matter which side that puts them on. Of course, neither side wants this...including most here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once those assholes get one of those seats, all bets are off. FOR FUCKING LIFE. The Constitution is less than toilet paper to those lower specimens of the lawyer sub species. The next Congress needs to impeach the whole lot of traitorous shitheads, then execute them all, by wood chipper. Time to start over with a fresh batch of black dress wearing pieces of shit. 
You surely don't include Scalia, Alito, and Thomas in that!  Lol well of course not. Because they say things you like. Everyone here only hates "activist" courts when they go against their own opinions and ideology. The leftist sights literally parrot the exact same responses when it's something they don't like. Here is the bottom line.....there shouldn't be such a thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" judge. A cases outcome should not be predetermined by the political make up of the court, as everyone here seems to prefer (well until it's 5 liberals and 4 conservatives at least). A fucking judge should be 100% unbiased and nonpartisan. They should interpret the cases without prejudice and rule on the letter and constitutionality of the law, no matter which side that puts them on. Of course, neither side wants this...including most here. Constitutional conservatives agree. So does Justice Scalia. Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law As this nation has "evolved," almost every change has gone against the intention of the Framers in their effort to establish a Constitutional Republic based on LIMITED GOVERNMENT. If you look at the major decisions from SCOTUS over the past 50 years, how many fall in the "Conservative Judicial Activism" bucket? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:58:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:59:18 PM EDT
[#10]
I never would have believed her, of all the Justices, would have had that opinion. Lie, lie, and lie some more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 8:02:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. States should not have ratified the 14th but since they did their laws are subject to federal judicial review. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 8:09:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so you are saying they do mushrooms before casting their vote on a subject before the court in order to receive this higher attainability of knowledge, got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is no contradiction. At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice. Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes. It's a completely different world. so you are saying they do mushrooms before casting their vote on a subject before the court in order to receive this higher attainability of knowledge, got it. Justice Douglas first let us common people know about the existence and effects of penumbras and emanations in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). It's been a while since I've read the case, but I don't think he mentioned ingesting psychoactive substances as an aid to interpretation. I will concede that anything is possible in the Brave New World. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 9:03:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
States should not have ratified the 14th but since they did their laws are subject to federal judicial review. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. States should not have ratified the 14th but since they did their laws are subject to federal judicial review. subject to judicial review does not equal enumerated powers. fundamental difference. but I agree the 14th amendment killed the 10th. When an unelected federal judge can overturn the will of the people of a state, that is simply tyranny, albeit with the tyrant in a black robe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 9:58:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
subject to judicial review does not equal enumerated powers. fundamental difference. but I agree the 14th amendment killed the 10th. When an unelected federal judge can overturn the will of the people of a state, that is simply tyranny, albeit with the tyrant in a black robe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. States should not have ratified the 14th but since they did their laws are subject to federal judicial review. subject to judicial review does not equal enumerated powers. fundamental difference. but I agree the 14th amendment killed the 10th. When an unelected federal judge can overturn the will of the people of a state, that is simply tyranny, albeit with the tyrant in a black robe. It can't be tyranny if it's constitutional. Which it is constitutional, courtesy of the 14th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 10:09:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, that simply isn't true. And if you believe anything that's said at a Supreme Court nomination hearing, you're a mark. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. Well, that simply isn't true. And if you believe anything that's said at a Supreme Court nomination hearing, you're a mark. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it is. The Supreme Court ignored US history, original intent, and the 10th Amendment to create a new right to gay marriage, one most of them would have said didn't exist just a few years ago, back when the poll numbers weren't so favorable for the issue. This was a ruling based on Facebook and Twitter, not the Constitution or Common Law. Now, as I pointed out earlier, this isn't the first time they've bowed to the mob and created a new right that no one knew existed before. But as far as gay marriage is concerned, Friday's decision was unprecedented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 10:44:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. Lol I'd be a nice guy but you decided not to first, so oh well. The fourteenth amendment was meant to apply the restrictions of the bill of rights to the states without exception. After the civil war your distinction is meaningless. Only spineless Supreme Court justices have prevented this from being carried out. It was the unquestionable intent of the drafters that the entire BOR be incorporated. I'm not going to tell you that you're talking bullshit in a discussion of infantry tactics or military procurement. You should mind yourself when you're outside your lane, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 10:46:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As far as gay marriage is concerned, it is. The Supreme Court ignored US history, original intent, and the 10th Amendment to create a new right to gay marriage, one most of them would have said didn't exist just a few years ago, back when the poll numbers weren't so favorable for the issue. This was a ruling based on Facebook and Twitter, not the Constitution or Common Law. Now, as I pointed out earlier, this isn't the first time they've bowed to the mob and created a new right that no one knew existed before. But as far as gay marriage is concerned, Friday's decision was unprecedented. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. Well, that simply isn't true. And if you believe anything that's said at a Supreme Court nomination hearing, you're a mark. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it is. The Supreme Court ignored US history, original intent, and the 10th Amendment to create a new right to gay marriage, one most of them would have said didn't exist just a few years ago, back when the poll numbers weren't so favorable for the issue. This was a ruling based on Facebook and Twitter, not the Constitution or Common Law. Now, as I pointed out earlier, this isn't the first time they've bowed to the mob and created a new right that no one knew existed before. But as far as gay marriage is concerned, Friday's decision was unprecedented. Like so many things, it depends how you frame it. Marriage was declared a fundamental right in the 50s/60s. There is about five different lines of precedent they could have used to permit gay marriage. To say this decision is without precedent is a half truth at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 10:48:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? Do you really think that is what it was ? I don't.... These sorts will always lie to get nominated or elected, confirmed or whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 8:51:03 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol I'd be a nice guy but you decided not to first, so oh well. The fourteenth amendment was meant to apply the restrictions of the bill of rights to the states without exception. After the civil war your distinction is meaningless. Only spineless Supreme Court justices have prevented this from being carried out. It was the unquestionable intent of the drafters that the entire BOR be incorporated. I'm not going to tell you that you're talking bullshit in a discussion of infantry tactics or military procurement. You should mind yourself when you're outside your lane, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little inside baseball http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/06/30/if-youre-upset-with-the-supreme-court-read-damon-roots-overruled/ Don't read that if you just want to fit the recent decisions into your neat left/right box. logical fallacy equating the striking down of federal laws with striking down state laws. the federal government is inherently limited in its powers by the constitution. state governments are not. sloppy logic to make a bullshit point and you should know better. Lol I'd be a nice guy but you decided not to first, so oh well. The fourteenth amendment was meant to apply the restrictions of the bill of rights to the states without exception. After the civil war your distinction is meaningless. Only spineless Supreme Court justices have prevented this from being carried out. It was the unquestionable intent of the drafters that the entire BOR be incorporated. I'm not going to tell you that you're talking bullshit in a discussion of infantry tactics or military procurement. You should mind yourself when you're outside your lane, too. wrong again. the federal laws struck down by the SCOTUS were trying to bestow rights not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution states only what the federal government CAN do. The incorporation of the states did not incorporate articles 1-3 of the constiution, merely individual rights. the 14th stated what laws the states can't pass. of course this old fashioned notion of a limited federal government is completely dead, so maybe a little too much history. don't grow that tomato comrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 8:59:12 AM EDT
[#20]
She didn't finish her sentence which would have been....................."but it should be constitutional and I will seek to change the constitution and make it a right if I am confirmed".
After all, she did preside over a few gay marriages as the judge IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:07:18 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Scalia owns an AR15, should he recuse himself at the next 2a ruling? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kagan and Ginsburg have both officiated at LGBT weddings. They should have recused themselves from the ruling on this issue. If Scalia owns an AR15, should he recuse himself at the next 2a ruling? Only if those Justices who don't own an AR recuse themselves also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:10:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She didn't finish her sentence which would have been....................."but it should be constitutional and I will seek to change the constitution and make it a right if I am confirmed". After all, she did preside over a few gay marriages as the judge IIRC. It became a constitutionally protected right as soon as Vermont legalized gay marriage in 2009, states that refused to recognize those marriages were in violation of the constitution as well as states that did not permit the same right within their borders, regardless of how they codified their ban. It just happened to take until now for it to get to SCOTUS and have the 14th enforced on it. The same can be said about CCW and States that allow constitutional carry, by the same use of the 14th every state that doesn't recognize another's permit is in violation. But in reality permits are unconstituional because constitutional carry should be the right that is protected under the 14th AND the 2nd. 99% of firearms laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I for one am looking forward to the challenges that should naturally flow from this. Even though I won't hold my breath for SCOTUS to rule with anything resembling integrity. This should be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:13:10 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It became a constitutionally protected right as soon as Vermont legalized gay marriage in 2009, states that refused to recognize those marriages were in violation of the constitution as well as states that did not permit the same right within their borders, regardless of how they codified their ban. It just happened to take until now for it to get to SCOTUS and have the 14th enforced on it. The same can be said about CCW and States that allow constitutional carry, by the same use of the 14th every state that doesn't recognize another's permit is in violation. But in reality permits are unconstituional because constitutional carry should be the right that is protected under the 14th AND the 2nd. 99% of firearms laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I for one am looking forward to the challenges that should naturally flow from this. Even though I won't hold my breath for SCOTUS to rule with anything resembling integrity. This should be a good thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
She didn't finish her sentence which would have been....................."but it should be constitutional and I will seek to change the constitution and make it a right if I am confirmed". After all, she did preside over a few gay marriages as the judge IIRC. It became a constitutionally protected right as soon as Vermont legalized gay marriage in 2009, states that refused to recognize those marriages were in violation of the constitution as well as states that did not permit the same right within their borders, regardless of how they codified their ban. It just happened to take until now for it to get to SCOTUS and have the 14th enforced on it. The same can be said about CCW and States that allow constitutional carry, by the same use of the 14th every state that doesn't recognize another's permit is in violation. But in reality permits are unconstituional because constitutional carry should be the right that is protected under the 14th AND the 2nd. 99% of firearms laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I for one am looking forward to the challenges that should naturally flow from this. Even though I won't hold my breath for SCOTUS to rule with anything resembling integrity. This should be a good thing. So if Michigan says no to gay marriages in an election, it is unconstitutional because Vermont said yes to gay marriages in an election? What if Michigan codified it first as not allowable? ETA: Let's add this.............Colorado legalizes marijuana............does that mean all other states who don't legalize it have unconstitutional laws? Also the 2A is expressly stated in the BOR's.........marijuana usage and gay marriage are not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:26:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if Michigan says no to gay marriages in an election, it is unconstitutional because Vermont said yes to gay marriages in an election? What if Michigan codified it first as not allowable? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
She didn't finish her sentence which would have been....................."but it should be constitutional and I will seek to change the constitution and make it a right if I am confirmed". After all, she did preside over a few gay marriages as the judge IIRC. It became a constitutionally protected right as soon as Vermont legalized gay marriage in 2009, states that refused to recognize those marriages were in violation of the constitution as well as states that did not permit the same right within their borders, regardless of how they codified their ban. It just happened to take until now for it to get to SCOTUS and have the 14th enforced on it. The same can be said about CCW and States that allow constitutional carry, by the same use of the 14th every state that doesn't recognize another's permit is in violation. But in reality permits are unconstituional because constitutional carry should be the right that is protected under the 14th AND the 2nd. 99% of firearms laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I for one am looking forward to the challenges that should naturally flow from this. Even though I won't hold my breath for SCOTUS to rule with anything resembling integrity. This should be a good thing. So if Michigan says no to gay marriages in an election, it is unconstitutional because Vermont said yes to gay marriages in an election? What if Michigan codified it first as not allowable? I prefer my government to recognize and protect rights and freedoms instead of restrict them without showing a valid compelling interest to do so. What compelling interest do states have to ban gay marriage by any method? None whatsoever, so MI code would not stand up to scrutiny under the 14th Amendment once the right was conferred to someone in another state. ETA: States have the federal scheduling of MJ to stand upon as "compelling interest". Though I doubt the federal schedule could withstand a constitutional challenge because it's simply made up. But as it stands now states have an excuse to not legalize it. It won't last very long though, the writing is on the wall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:27:24 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wrong again. the federal laws struck down by the SCOTUS were trying to bestow rights not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution states only what the federal government CAN do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
wrong again. the federal laws struck down by the SCOTUS were trying to bestow rights not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution states only what the federal government CAN do. The incorporation of the states did not incorporate articles 1-3 of the constiution, merely individual rights. the 14th stated what laws the states can't pass. of course this old fashioned notion of a limited federal government is completely dead, so maybe a little too much history. don't grow that tomato comrade. Don't shit on someone trying to post a little interesting history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:27:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... I prefer my government to recognize and protect rights and freedoms instead of restrict them without showing a valid compelling interest to do so. What compelling interest do states have to ban gay marriage by any method? None whatsoever, so MI code would not stand up to scrutiny under the 14th Amendment once the right was conferred to someone in another state. The 10A says if it something is not expressly provided in the constitution............it is now in the realm of the states. You are changing the constitution because nowhere does it say that if one state grants a right all states have to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:29:33 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 10A says if it something is not expressly provided in the constitution............it is now in the realm of the states. You are changing the constitution because nowhere does it say that if one state grants a right all states have to do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............... I prefer my government to recognize and protect rights and freedoms instead of restrict them without showing a valid compelling interest to do so. What compelling interest do states have to ban gay marriage by any method? None whatsoever, so MI code would not stand up to scrutiny under the 14th Amendment once the right was conferred to someone in another state. The 10A says if it something is not expressly provided in the constitution............it is now in the realm of the states. You are changing the constitution because nowhere does it say that if one state grants a right all states have to do it. The realm of the states OR THE PEOPLE. People's rights TRUMP the state every single time. ETA: Every time there isn't a compelling interest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:31:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........... The realm of the states OR THE PEOPLE. People's rights TRUMP the state every single time. The people in Michigan voted gay marriage down................you want the Federal government to overrule that election. Nowhere does the constitution mention gay marriage is a right..........nowhere does the constitution mention marriage between anything...........therefore it is left up to the states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:32:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people in Michigan voted gay marriage down................you want the government to overrule that election. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
........... The realm of the states OR THE PEOPLE. People's rights TRUMP the state every single time. The people in Michigan voted gay marriage down................you want the government to overrule that election. Individuals are protected from the tyranny of the majority when the people in Michigan, the state, can not provide a compelling interest to restrict a right. It is left up to the states, and some states allow gays to be married, other states CAN NOT refuse to recognize nor deny the same right to their citizens. ETA: without a compelling interest. Show the compelling interest to prohibit gay marriage, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:33:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your last box is all fucked up. CARTRIDGE BOX Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ballot box soap box and now jury box Your last box is all fucked up. CARTRIDGE BOX 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:34:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Individuals are protected from the tyranny of the majority when the people in Michigan, the state, can not provide a compelling interest to restrict a right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
........... The realm of the states OR THE PEOPLE. People's rights TRUMP the state every single time. The people in Michigan voted gay marriage down................you want the government to overrule that election. Individuals are protected from the tyranny of the majority when the people in Michigan, the state, can not provide a compelling interest to restrict a right. What is compelling to you and I might be different since it is subjective. Let's say your state wants to legalize hard drugs.........let's say my state says no.................whether that is a compelling interest is in the eyes of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:35:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is compelling to you and I might be different since it is subjective. Let's say your state wants to legalize hard drugs.........let's say my state says no.................whether that is a compelling interest is in the eyes of the beholder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
........... The realm of the states OR THE PEOPLE. People's rights TRUMP the state every single time. The people in Michigan voted gay marriage down................you want the government to overrule that election. Individuals are protected from the tyranny of the majority when the people in Michigan, the state, can not provide a compelling interest to restrict a right. What is compelling to you and I might be different since it is subjective. Let's say your state wants to legalize hard drugs.........let's say my state says no.................whether that is a compelling interest is in the eyes of the beholder. It isn't subjective at all. Compelling interest means that if something is allowed it would endanger or harm other people or property. Show that hard drugs cause undue hardship on state funds, facilities, and puts individuals in danger. It isn't very hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:40:41 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.............. It isn't subjective at all. Compelling interest means that if something is allowed it would endanger or harm other people or property. Show that hard drugs cause undue hardship on state funds, facilities, and puts individuals in danger. It isn't very hard. It's subjective because some would say incarcerating people and the costs associated with keeping hard drugs illegal is more harmful to society than just letting people take hard drugs. It is subjective. Same for gay marriage. Some say stay with tradition because of the family structure, etc., and don't extend monetary benefits to gay couples the same as married people who pro create for survival of the species. That is subjective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:51:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's subjective because some would say incarcerating people and the costs associated with keeping hard drugs illegal is more harmful to society than just letting people take hard drugs. It is subjective. Same for gay marriage. Some say stay with tradition because of the family structure, etc., and don't extend monetary benefits to gay couples the same as married people who pro create for survival of the species. That is subjective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.............. It isn't subjective at all. Compelling interest means that if something is allowed it would endanger or harm other people or property. Show that hard drugs cause undue hardship on state funds, facilities, and puts individuals in danger. It isn't very hard. It's subjective because some would say incarcerating people and the costs associated with keeping hard drugs illegal is more harmful to society than just letting people take hard drugs. It is subjective. Same for gay marriage. Some say stay with tradition because of the family structure, etc., and don't extend monetary benefits to gay couples the same as married people who pro create for survival of the species. That is subjective. It isn't subjective. Compelling interest is well established. As for gay marriage, tradition is not compelling interest of the state. For "survival of the species" to be valid the state would have to show that it is an actual possibilty. Instead reality shows that the population of humans is growing. A wild assed guess is not compelling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 9:57:20 AM EDT
[#35]
By making this a rights issue, who is to say you can't marry your brother, mother, son,daughters?? Can't the same arguments be applied to that as well?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:01:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By making this a rights issue, who is to say you can't marry your brother, mother, son,daughters?? Can't the same arguments be applied to that as well? So what if the same arguments are used. The state might prevail on the standards of birth defects and avoiding estate taxes, or they might not. I'm not particularly worried about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:04:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.............. It isn't subjective. Compelling interest is well established. As for gay marriage, tradition is not compelling interest of the state. For "survival of the species" to be valid the state would have to show that it is an actual possibilty. Instead reality shows that the population of humans is growing. A wild assed guess is not compelling. Sorry, it is all subjective. What is compelling to you might be different than what is compelling to someone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:06:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what if the same arguments are used. The state might prevail on the standards of birth defects and avoiding estate taxes, or they might not. I'm not particularly worried about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
By making this a rights issue, who is to say you can't marry your brother, mother, son,daughters?? Can't the same arguments be applied to that as well? So what if the same arguments are used. The state might prevail on the standards of birth defects and avoiding estate taxes, or they might not. I'm not particularly worried about it. Which, of course, proves my point that these issues are subjective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:09:12 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, it is all subjective. What is compelling to you might different than what is compelling to someone else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.............. It isn't subjective. Compelling interest is well established. As for gay marriage, tradition is not compelling interest of the state. For "survival of the species" to be valid the state would have to show that it is an actual possibilty. Instead reality shows that the population of humans is growing. A wild assed guess is not compelling. Sorry, it is all subjective. What is compelling to you might different than what is compelling to someone else. Compelling interest is a test for the interest of the STATE. What another person FEELS is not in question at all. The state has to prove a legitimate governmental need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:10:27 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. Yep. And now that Obama got her on the bench, she will do or say whatever Obama wants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:11:46 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ Compelling interest is a test for the interest of the STATE. What another person FEELS is not in question at all. The state has to prove a legitimate governmental need. I repeat, in Michigan gay marriage was voted down by the electorate. The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. They made a subjective determination and Justice Kennedy even admitted to it being subjective in so many words. For the basic reasons I stated, Michigan voted it down...............they felt it was compelling, the SCOTUS did not feel it was compelling. To arrive at that conclusion, both sides used subjectivity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:13:01 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which, of course, proves my point that these issues are subjective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By making this a rights issue, who is to say you can't marry your brother, mother, son,daughters?? Can't the same arguments be applied to that as well? So what if the same arguments are used. The state might prevail on the standards of birth defects and avoiding estate taxes, or they might not. I'm not particularly worried about it. Which, of course, proves my point that these issues are subjective. This here should be your personal test if you care to rub a couple of brain cells together: "Is the thing that you FEEL isn't right worth pointing a gun in someone's face to MAKE them stop it?" If no then you don't have a compelling interest regardless of how you feel about it. I'm not even talking about the legal compelling interest test, this is solely something for YOU to ponder in your own head. Now consider how subjective YOU feel about gay marriage? Would you put a gun in their face to prevent them from saying vows and living happily ever until divorce (the average american marriage)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:14:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't subjective at all. Compelling interest means that if something is allowed it would endanger or harm other people or property. Show that hard drugs cause undue hardship on state funds, facilities, and puts individuals in danger. It isn't very hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
........... The realm of the states OR THE PEOPLE. People's rights TRUMP the state every single time. The people in Michigan voted gay marriage down................you want the government to overrule that election. Individuals are protected from the tyranny of the majority when the people in Michigan, the state, can not provide a compelling interest to restrict a right. What is compelling to you and I might be different since it is subjective. Let's say your state wants to legalize hard drugs.........let's say my state says no.................whether that is a compelling interest is in the eyes of the beholder. It isn't subjective at all. Compelling interest means that if something is allowed it would endanger or harm other people or property. Show that hard drugs cause undue hardship on state funds, facilities, and puts individuals in danger. It isn't very hard. When the Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court, he conceded that religious universities and charities WILL face legal challenges and issues if the court ruled in favor of gay marriage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:15:21 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I repeat, in Michigan gay marriage was voted down by the electorate. The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. They made a subjective determination and Justice Kennedy even admitted to it being subjective in so many words. For the basic reasons I stated, Michigan voted it down...............they felt it was compelling, the SCOTUS did not feel it was compelling. To arrive at that conclusion, both sides used subjectivity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
............ Compelling interest is a test for the interest of the STATE. What another person FEELS is not in question at all. The state has to prove a legitimate governmental need. I repeat, in Michigan gay marriage was voted down by the electorate. The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. They made a subjective determination and Justice Kennedy even admitted to it being subjective in so many words. For the basic reasons I stated, Michigan voted it down...............they felt it was compelling, the SCOTUS did not feel it was compelling. To arrive at that conclusion, both sides used subjectivity. They made a FACTUAL determination that the State of MI had no reason to prohibit gay marriage by any means that was compelling. Votes don't matter when you are using that power to restrict other citizens without the state having a real damn good reason. Feels don't cut it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:16:20 AM EDT
[#45]
pretty much posted this before - but if they just stripped the word marriage from federal law - and replaced civil union. I don't think anyone could scream they were being denied the right to be married if the federal and state governments stopped recognizing all marriages. It would be equal protection.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:16:24 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.......... This here should be your personal test if you care to rub a couple of brain cells together: "Is the thing that you FEEL isn't right worth pointing a gun in someone's face to MAKE them stop it?" If no then you don't have a compelling interest regardless of how you feel about it. I'm not even talking about the legal compelling interest test, this is solely something for YOU to ponder in your own head. Now consider how subjective YOU feel about gay marriage? Would you put a gun in their face to prevent them from saying vows and living happily ever until divorce (the average american marriage)? Based on my personal beliefs I voted to allow gay marriage when it was up for the vote in Michigan. It was based on a subjective analysis of the pros and cons. Most of the people disagreed with me for the reasons I mentioned and I understand those subjective reasons. I do not believe the SCOTUS has the authority to make my vote the winning vote in this matter. Why do I feel that way...........because it is a state issue not a Federal one. If you want to make it a Federal issue amend the constitution to talk about marriage or abolish the 10A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:18:10 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When the Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court, he conceded that religious universities and charities WILL face legal challenges and issues if the court ruled in favor of gay marriage. So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity. Which conservatives swear it does when their jackboot is on someone's neck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:20:12 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When the Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court, he conceded that religious universities and charities WILL face legal challenges and issues if the court ruled in favor of gay marriage. So what if they face legal challenges. No one and nothing has immunity from legal proceedings. But they do have the trump card of the 1st Amendment which is also viewed through the lens of compelling interest and those legal challenges will fail if the system has integrity.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:20:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Compelling interest is a test for the interest of the STATE. What another person FEELS is not in question at all. The state has to prove a legitimate governmental need. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.............. It isn't subjective. Compelling interest is well established. As for gay marriage, tradition is not compelling interest of the state. For "survival of the species" to be valid the state would have to show that it is an actual possibilty. Instead reality shows that the population of humans is growing. A wild assed guess is not compelling. Sorry, it is all subjective. What is compelling to you might different than what is compelling to someone else. Compelling interest is a test for the interest of the STATE. What another person FEELS is not in question at all. The state has to prove a legitimate governmental need. Isn't it really what is compelling to the judge/judges sitting on the court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2015 10:20:27 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on my personal beliefs I voted to allow gay marriage when it was up for the vote in Michigan. It was based on a subjective analysis of the pros and cons. Most of the people disagreed with me for the reasons I mentioned and I understand those subjective reasons. I do not believe the SCOTUS has the authority to make my vote the winning vote in this matter. Why do I feel that way...........because it is a state issue not a Federal one. If you want to make it a Federal issue amend the constitution to talk about marriage or abolish the 10A. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.......... This here should be your personal test if you care to rub a couple of brain cells together: "Is the thing that you FEEL isn't right worth pointing a gun in someone's face to MAKE them stop it?" If no then you don't have a compelling interest regardless of how you feel about it. I'm not even talking about the legal compelling interest test, this is solely something for YOU to ponder in your own head. Now consider how subjective YOU feel about gay marriage? Would you put a gun in their face to prevent them from saying vows and living happily ever until divorce (the average american marriage)? Based on my personal beliefs I voted to allow gay marriage when it was up for the vote in Michigan. It was based on a subjective analysis of the pros and cons. Most of the people disagreed with me for the reasons I mentioned and I understand those subjective reasons. I do not believe the SCOTUS has the authority to make my vote the winning vote in this matter. Why do I feel that way...........because it is a state issue not a Federal one. If you want to make it a Federal issue amend the constitution to talk about marriage or abolish the 10A. It was amended long ago the 14th A is it. Individuals have rights which no state or majority can interfere with, votes or not. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
