Republicans The GOP's Presidential Candidates

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LaSalleAve, Jan 28, 2015.

Page 21 of 80
  1. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,754
    Likes Received:
    23,932
    FIFY
     
    shane0911, Jul 1, 2015
    #201
    LaSalleAve likes this.
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Huckabee is completely full of shit. It is the job of the court to rule on the constitutionality of decisions brought before it and they did just that. The majority rules on the court and it always has. It matters not at all that the decision was 5-4, Hell most decisions are split on the court.

    Neither is this an example of the Court being a "ruler", which is complete nonsense. We have no rulers in this country, only elected officials. Was the court being a "ruler" when they voted to interfere with the popular votes of the citizens of the country to decree (unprecedentedly) George Bush to be President? No objections from the right wing then.

    Furthermore the court is not "creating liberties" that don't exist in the Constitution. The Constitution is broadly worded and thousands of court decisions on its interpretation exist and are just as legal as this one. If The People don't like this ruling, then their representatives can amend the Constitution or enact another of the many Acts of Congress to change the laws to suit the people. Only the people do not want this, it is clear--63% approve, a supermajority. Only the religious right and the social conservatives who cater to them disagree. He is just being a candidate addressing his base.

    As Justice Kennedy wrote . . .

    No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”​

    This ruling is about equality in the eyes of the law. There are a lot of things that religious people believe to be their exclusive right . . . like jihad . . . and they are free to discriminate in their churches and to be selective about who they admit or who they choose to consider married on a religious basis. But legally, all people are created equal and tax-paying gay citizens cannot be denied the legal protections and privileges of marriage.
     
    red55, Jul 1, 2015
    #202
    LSUMASTERMIND and LaSalleAve like this.
  3. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    Lol, riiiiiight!!!
     
    LaSalleAve, Jul 1, 2015
    #203
  4. uscvball

    uscvball Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Messages:
    10,673
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    [​IMG]

    It's not about that.
    "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie"
     
    uscvball, Jul 1, 2015
    #204
    Bengal B likes this.
  5. uscvball

    uscvball Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    Messages:
    10,673
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Kennedy disagrees with you. "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?" If it's Constitutionality he's after, why the hell is he discussing expression, intimacy, and SPIRITUALITY?

    It matters when it comes to abridging state's rights.

    The People have been deciding on their own through votes....that discussion has now been ended by 5 black robes.

    A SC justice has no business discussing and defining the concept of marriage and what it "embodies". He's breaking his own rule there. Fidelity? Hilarious when stats indicate that well over 50% of married couples cheat.
     
    uscvball, Jul 1, 2015
    #205
  6. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    I'm sure Kennedy and I disagree on a lot of things. As well as Alito and that charachiture of an Italian pizza chef Scalia too.
     
    LaSalleAve, Jul 1, 2015
    #206
  7. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    If my grandmother, who is a devout catholic can get on board with marriage equality, these assholes can too. It makes no sense why people can't just accept this because it will have ZERO effect on them and their personal lives or freedoms.

    One day hopefully I'll be able to legally spark a joint at the reception of a gay wedding in Lousiana.
     
    LaSalleAve, Jul 1, 2015
    #207
  8. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,994
    While it may have no effect on me there are just some things that are wrong. Now that a slim majority of the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to create law what's next? 15 years ago the very idea that two people of the same sex could legally marry was ridiculous. Who is to say that 15 years from now a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court doesn't rule in favor of a suit by the National Man Boy Love Association making it defacto legal for a grown man to marry a 6 year old boy. I am not particularly religious but this country is going straight to hell. How long before we fall like the Romans from the weight of our own decadence?
     
    Bengal B, Jul 1, 2015
    #208
  9. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    That's a ridiculous statement.
     
    LaSalleAve, Jul 1, 2015
    #209
  10. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    LaSalleAve, Jul 1, 2015
    #210
Page 21 of 80

Share This Page