Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
subbie
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 31 of 313 (749997)
02-10-2015 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by marc9000
02-10-2015 8:53 PM


marc9000 writes:
The best solution to that problem if it's likely to happen, is stay with tradition, and LEAVE IT ALONE!
Yeah, if only it weren't for that pesky Fourteenth Amendment screwing everything up, giving everyone equal protection of the laws.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by marc9000, posted 02-10-2015 8:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 32 of 313 (749998)
02-11-2015 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
02-10-2015 8:47 PM


quote:
I think it's the SCOTUS who are acting unconstitutionally by calling the vote by state citizens unconstitutional
Perhaps you can explain where the Constitution says that popular votes can override rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Until you can do that your opinion remains just a personal opinion without any grounding in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 02-10-2015 8:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 313 (749999)
02-11-2015 2:27 AM


Family Research Council:
It may be the Supreme Court of the United States, but it isn't a united one. At least two justices are disgusted by the Court's activism on marriage -- and they aren't afraid to show it. Hours before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to same-sex "marriage" in Alabama, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia took aim at their colleagues in a blistering criticism of the majority's decision. Instead of defending the will of the people, Thomas blasted the Court for "(looking) the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws."
This is "another example of this court's increasingly cavalier attitude toward the states," Thomas fumed. "This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way for the court to carry out its role," he said, echoing the concerns of so many Americans, "and it is indecorous for this court to pretend that it is." All the Court has done, Thomas laments, is create more chaos and confusion. "I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important question."
Fortunately for Justice Thomas and anyone else who respects the rule of law, the Supreme Court certainly has an uphill climb imposing its will on Alabama. As of yesterday, only nine of Alabama's 67 counties were issuing same-sex "wedding" licenses in the strong show of support for the state's constitution that Judge Moore called for. "A lot of states in this union have caved to such unlawful authority, and this is not one," Moore told CNN. "This is Alabama. We don't give up the recognition that law has bounds. It's my duty to speak up when I see the jurisdiction of our courts being intruded by unlawful federal authority."
While liberals scoffed at Moore's ability to sway the courts, most probate judges listened -- shuttering license windows across Alabama in the most aggressive pushback to judicial activism Americans have seen since the courts began picking off state marriage amendments. By record numbers, other probates dropped out of their wedding obligations altogether. If there are consequences, Washington County Probate Judge Nick Williams said, so be it. "I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." In a refreshing change, Alabama is using the law to determine their actions -- not the radical opinions of politically-motivated judges.
This explosion of resistance is also important for another reason: it exposes the Left's agenda as purely court-driven. In Alabama, probate judges are elected, so obviously, their biggest priority is reflecting the law that was passed by voters. If Americans were truly on board with this effort to redefine marriage, governors, state attorneys general, and other elected officials wouldn't bother fighting it. Instead, these probates are showing where the people really are on the issue -- and it isn't where the media would have you believe.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R), who represents the new ground zero on marriage, referenced on this in his strong words for the court. "I think it's an unhealthy trend that judges feel that they're somehow reflecting popular opinion when first of all, it's not popular opinion, and secondly, who are they to be ruling on cases based on how they feel," he told Roll Call. "The attorney general of the state of Alabama has appealed, which I support. And while a number of courts have held the way (the) Alabama court has, others have not, and to me this line of cases ... represents an activist judiciary," Sessions said. "No Congress has ever passed a law or a constitutional amendment that would ever have been thought to have this result. So, I think the proper role of the federal courts is to follow the law as it is -- not as they wish it to be."

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2015 7:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 02-11-2015 7:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-11-2015 9:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 02-11-2015 2:45 PM Faith has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8564
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 34 of 313 (750001)
02-11-2015 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
02-10-2015 8:50 PM


Even Thomas Jefferson warned that SCOTUS could get too much power, and he was right.
Jefferson's opinion does not answer the question.
Whose interpretation of law is to prevail? Who is the final arbiter of what the constitution means?
Jefferson was pissed because the courts were manned by Federalists and he was a partisan Democrat. He wanted each branch of government to determine their own interpretations of what the constitution means.
Kinda dumb for such a smart guy. In such a scheme there will inevitably be conflicts of interpretation. Who decides who is right?
Marshall's logic was impeccable. Since the court's power is extended to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution the court en necessitatis must interpret what the law means in order to make a ruling.
BTW,do you know what nonacquiescence is?
Edited by AZPaul3, : appaln spelln

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 02-10-2015 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 35 of 313 (750002)
02-11-2015 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
02-11-2015 2:27 AM


Not much there other than an appeal to mob rule. Session,s comments apply at least a strongly to inter-racial marriage, but nobody says that Loving was decided wrongly.
The legal and moral case for gay marriage is unanswerable. And that is why it is winning In the courts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 2:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8564
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(4)
Message 36 of 313 (750003)
02-11-2015 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
02-11-2015 2:27 AM


From your quote:
quote:
the proper role of the federal courts is to follow the law as it is -- not as they wish it to be.
The law as it is:
quote:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It does not say "nor deny to any person, except homosexuals or other groups that may be unpopular with the majority, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Edited by Admin, : Add close quote at end of last sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 2:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 313 (750005)
02-11-2015 8:57 AM


Chris Pinto radio show on the Fourteenth Amendment
States' rights, Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, Christian defenses of slavery, Democrats defended slavery with same kind of reasoning now using to push gay rights, fourteenth amendment big issue for Supreme Court in April.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2015 9:50 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2015 11:51 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 313 (750006)
02-11-2015 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
02-11-2015 2:27 AM


The jokes just keep coming
Thanks Faith; it's comforting to know there's the Family Research Council to provide laughs even after Judge Roy gets throw out of office yet again.
Clarence Thomas has always been a joke and this, while not his best, is worth a chuckle.
Clarence writes:
"I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important question."
And then there is this jewel ...
quote:
If there are consequences, Washington County Probate Judge Nick Williams said, so be it. "I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution."
A Judge that is not worried about following the U.S. Constitution? Are the people of Alabama so stupid that they vote in Judges that do not follow the law?
But as I said, the Christian Cult of Ignorance does has laugh value if it were not just so pitiful.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 2:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 12:24 PM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 39 of 313 (750008)
02-11-2015 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
02-11-2015 8:57 AM


I'd love to know how Chris Pinto claims that the arguments for gay rights are the same as those for slavery. Dare you tell us? The States Rights argument, for instance, seems to point the other way...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 8:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 40 of 313 (750027)
02-11-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
02-10-2015 8:47 PM


ooh child wants to know what about the people voting one way one time and another way another time and doesn't that sort of make the whole thing untenable? Of course not, that's democracy.
So explain to me how that works - that's what I'm asking of you. Tell me, if the system worked the way you want it to what does the government do with families that are, then aren't, then are again recognized for civil rights? Moving to another state, voters allowing then disallowing marriages, death & divorce all affect the status of these couples. Explain it to me, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 02-10-2015 8:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 12:28 PM ooh-child has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9201
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 41 of 313 (750028)
02-11-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
02-11-2015 8:57 AM


Democrats defended slavery with same kind of reasoning now using to push gay rights,
First of all you need to do some research on the Democratic, Republican Party thing. They switched social positions during the last century.
In actuality the reasoning used to defend slavery is the same reasoning used to prevent gay marriage. If you can reasonably argue the reverse please present the argument. I don't listen to hatemongers like Chris Pinto and we do not argue via link. Either present an argument or retract this post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 8:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 12:26 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 313 (750032)
02-11-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
02-11-2015 9:08 AM


Re: The jokes just keep coming
Interesting. I read that as he's not worried about following the Constitution because he IS following it. Difference of opinion on what the Constitution requires.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-11-2015 9:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 02-11-2015 1:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 313 (750033)
02-11-2015 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Theodoric
02-11-2015 11:51 AM


Forcing it down our throats is the main similarity, having no respect whatever for the majority, which believe it or not IS supposed to rule in this country according to the Constitution, with minority rights also respected. But what's happening in this case is the minority is ruling the rest of us. Driving Christians out of business is tyranny of the minority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2015 11:51 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 02-11-2015 12:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2015 1:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2015 1:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 313 (750034)
02-11-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ooh-child
02-11-2015 11:42 AM


As marc9000 pointed out let the voters decide and that be the end of it. There is no need to keep revoting on the issue. Deal with what the voters said in the first place. Which is nothing but what they've had to deal with already.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ooh-child, posted 02-11-2015 11:42 AM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DrJones*, posted 02-11-2015 12:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 50 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2015 1:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 69 by ooh-child, posted 02-11-2015 2:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22504
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 45 of 313 (750039)
02-11-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-11-2015 12:26 PM


Faith writes:
But what's happening in this case is the minority is ruling the rest of us. Driving Christians out of business is tyranny of the minority.
You're claiming harm to fundamentalist Christians when there is none. It should be no skin off your nose that married gay couples exist. You want to impose your religious views on others by denying a group rights that everyone else has. No one's imposing their religious views upon you. You're still free to practice your religion as you see fit. Fundamentalist ministers across the country are still fully within their rights to refuse to marry gay couples, and to refuse to admit married gay couples into their congregations. But the state is not a religion and cannot deny rights to any group.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 12:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 02-11-2015 12:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 74 by AZPaul3, posted 02-11-2015 2:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024