Drudge: 1 JUDGE VOIDS 7,000,000 VOTERS...

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
When a judge struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, he handed gay rights advocates a historic and invigorating victory, but also a temporary one in a long fight that may be heading toward a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0vjebpI89

He looks like a queer:

jw.jpg
 
I was surprised he put an injunction on his own ruling until it was decided by higher courts. I'm sure the 9th will uphold his decision, then the SCOTUS will battle it out. I expect a 5-4 decision in support of this ruling. (That's a prediction folks, an opinion on how the courts may rule not a personal opinion..., I've already told you what I think would be the right way to handle this.)
 
The issue would be settled law in the US once the S.Ct. ruled. I really hope they take the case and once again put limits on the power of the Fed to disciminate..
 
Southern Man said:
His 14th amendment reasoning is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't change my prediction at all. Whether or not this is nonsense the reality is the SCOTUS is a political entity, and Kennedy would side with the liberals on this issue based on past decisions. He'll side with conservatives on some issues (guns) and liberals on others (abortion, etc.)...

I predict that the SCOTUS will rule on this, and that they'll uphold this decision in the end in a 5-4 decision, probably with the decision written by Kennedy and the opposition opinion written by Clarence Thomas...
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change my prediction at all. Whether or not this is nonsense the reality is the SCOTUS is a political entity, and Kennedy would side with the liberals on this issue based on past decisions. He'll side with conservatives on some issues (guns) and liberals on others (abortion, etc.)...

I predict that the SCOTUS will rule on this, and that they'll uphold this decision in the end in a 5-4 decision, probably with the decision written by Kennedy and the opposition opinion written by Clarence Thomas...
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with you that 5 members of the Court will simply ignore the Constitution and rule the way that they want, and again the voters will get screwed.
 
Jarod said:
The issue would be settled law in the US once the S.Ct. ruled. I really hope they take the case and once again put limits on the power of the Fed to disciminate..
Click to expand...

You use the word 'discriminate' as if it was a dirty word....thats bullshit....
A healthy amount of discrimination in our lives is a good thing....
We all have rights...and that includes the right to discriminate between good and bad, moral and immoral, when to act or not act, etc....we discriminate every day of our lives...and just because some us choose differently than you might is to be celebrated and not demonized....
its only the freakin' elite that think we all must make the some choices they might make because they somehow know better....again, bullshit
 
Damocles said:
I was surprised he put an injunction on his own ruling until it was decided by higher courts. I'm sure the 9th will uphold his decision, then the SCOTUS will battle it out. I expect a 5-4 decision in support of this ruling. (That's a prediction folks, an opinion on how the courts may rule not a personal opinion..., I've already told you what I think would be the right way to handle this.)
Click to expand...
Really? You don't feel the conservative balance on the court would tip the decision the other way? 4-5 against?
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change my prediction at all. Whether or not this is nonsense the reality is the SCOTUS is a political entity, and Kennedy would side with the liberals on this issue based on past decisions. He'll side with conservatives on some issues (guns) and liberals on others (abortion, etc.)...

I predict that the SCOTUS will rule on this, and that they'll uphold this decision in the end in a 5-4 decision, probably with the decision written by Kennedy and the opposition opinion written by Clarence Thomas...
Click to expand...
Ahh, that answers my question. Please disregard my last question.
 
bravo said:
You use the word 'discriminate' as if it was a dirty word....thats bullshit....
A healthy amount of discrimination in our lives is a good thing....
We all have rights...and that includes the right to discriminate between good and bad, moral and immoral, when to act or not act, etc....we discriminate every day of our lives...and just because some us choose differently than you might is to be celebrated and not demonized....
its only the freakin' elite that think we all must make the some choices they might make because they somehow know better....again, bullshit
Click to expand...

I agree with you that some descrimination is a good thing, as long as its descriminating with a non biased bases. I just want my governments ability to descriminate limited, sharply and specifically to descrimination that has a rational bases.
 
Southern Man said:
I can't disagree with you that 5 members of the Court will simply ignore the Constitution and rule the way that they want, and again the voters will get screwed.
Click to expand...

This is the Constitution. The voters have exceeded the constitution and thus should be ignored.

The Constitution puts a limit on what the voters can allow. If the people of Alabama voted to reinstate slavery, the Constitution would prohibit that, even if 90% of the voters voted for it!

Do you not belive in the Constitution?
 
Jarod said:
This is the Constitution. The voters have exceeded the constitution and thus should be ignored.

The Constitution puts a limit on what the voters can allow. If the people of Alabama voted to reinstate slavery, the Constitution would prohibit that, even if 90% of the voters voted for it!

Do you not belive in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
The voters in CA chose to define marriage as is their prerogative under Amendment X. This has nothing to do with Amendment IV.
 
Southern Man said:
The voters in CA chose to define marriage as is their prerogative under Amendment X. This has nothing to do with Amendment IV.
Click to expand...


It's got everything to do with Amendment XIV:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
 
Southern Man said:
The voters in CA chose to define marriage as is their prerogative under Amendment X. This has nothing to do with Amendment IV.
Click to expand...
Marriage, okay, but civil unions should be hands off! Call it by another name, give them rights to become partners who have legal rights!

Why get hung up on a semantics! People want to pretend that marriage is some HOLY institution and then they run to Vegas to get a quickie divorce so they can marry the girl they have been cheating with since they last got married. It use to be a business deals between families! Woman were a piece of property that were traded like land or cattle, so give me a break on the institution of marriage and how it would be ruined by homosexuals be allowed to perform the action. It is a joke!
 
Damocles said:
I was surprised he put an injunction on his own ruling until it was decided by higher courts. I'm sure the 9th will uphold his decision, then the SCOTUS will battle it out. I expect a 5-4 decision in support of this ruling. (That's a prediction folks, an opinion on how the courts may rule not a personal opinion..., I've already told you what I think would be the right way to handle this.)
Click to expand...

he stayed his order, imo, because it would merely cause confusion and all those people who go out and get married now, would likely have their licenses revoked if the 9th reverses. i know last time cal scotus ruled and until prop 8 passed, 18,000 marriages were left intact, but i believe because this is federal court and not the highest court of california ruling on california law and federal law, that if 9th reverses, the licenses will be invalid.

and btw....18,000 gay marriages for 2 years now...and those that oppose it can't cite anything negative to have occurred since those marriages took place
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top