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

RStringfield said:
Scalia, Alito, Robert and Thomas. I think, that's all they can hope for unless the court can carve somthing out that does not overturn other rulings.
Click to expand...

This looks like a 5-4 against the proposition, unless a liberal dies or something. Even then it will be Obama's pick that will replace the liberal.

I belive its very possable they may not take the case... Often times they dont like to take a very devisive case.
 
Jarod said:
Thomas is a poor writer and appears to be unfimular with precident and legal foundation. That is why he rarely is assigned to write anything by the chief or the senior judge in the marjority.
Click to expand...

They have clerks to help with that. There is no reason to assume what you claim. He can write his own opinion if he does not agree with the opinion of the majority or minority. He did so in Raich.

It does appear he writes more than I imagined and with more words.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas
 
SmarterThanYou said:
thomas is an excellent writer. He's also a constitutional originalist. he abhors precedent when it's constitutionally wrong. again, i say read his dissent in raich and his adjoining opinion in chicago v mcdonald.
Click to expand...

He is underestimated. But he ignores the 9th and the right to privacy.
 
Southern Man said:
You haven't presented an argument.
Click to expand...

Sure I have. Maybe, not so much in this thread but in several others. Walker's ruling might as well substitute for it. The discrimination is gender based and distincition in classes of cohabitation agreements creates invidious discrimination that does not serve a valid state purpose.

The ninth clearly states that the bill of rights is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of our rights. Marriage is a fundamental right and many court cases have been decided against the government regulation on this matter.

The court can either upset precedent overturning rulings like Lawrence, Loving and others, they are going to have come up with an argument that demonstrates a legitmate state interest or create some new test which justifies precedent while excluding gay marriage. For what is it you are arguing?

The only thing you have mentioned is the tenth. A decision on those grounds would clearly upset the rulings in Loving, Lawrence and other cases.
 
RStringfield said:
Sure I have. Maybe, not so much in this thread but in several others. Walker's ruling might as well substitute for it. The discrimination is gender based and distincition in classes of cohabitation agreements creates invidious discrimination that does not serve a valid state purpose.

The ninth clearly states that the bill of rights is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of our rights. Marriage is a fundamental right and many court cases have been decided against the government regulation on this matter.

The court can either upset precedent overturning rulings like Lawrence, Loving and others, they are going to have come up with an argument that demonstrates a legitmate state interest or create some new test which justifies precedent while excluding gay marriage. For what is it you are arguing?

The only thing you have mentioned is the tenth. A decision on those grounds would clearly upset the rulings in Loving, Lawrence and other cases.
Click to expand...

Its not a fundamental right. You only get to have a relationship with a person who wants the same thing. You can pursue Naomi Campbell as long as you want, but unless she allows you to you'll be otherwise arrested for stalking.
 
The tenth does not give the states absolute rights to any and everything, sorry conservatives. It does not give the states the right to violate the 1st, its limited by the 9th and the 14th.
 
Jarod said:
This looks like a 5-4 against the proposition, unless a liberal dies or something. Even then it will be Obama's pick that will replace the liberal.

I belive its very possable they may not take the case... Often times they dont like to take a very devisive case.
Click to expand...
This is a very real possibility, thereby confining the decision only to the 9th cir. Only with this decision there will be a challenge in another circuit. This will create a conflict between the circuits forcing the court to take it up.
 
Southern Man said:
Its not a fundamental right. You only get to have a relationship with a person who wants the same thing. You can pursue Naomi Campbell as long as you want, but unless she allows you to you'll be otherwise arrested for stalking.
Click to expand...
Wanting Naomi Campbell is not a right, it is a desire. But marrying someone that wants to marry you IS a fundamental right. You confuse specific desires with general desires. Most people desire to marry. That right does not get anymore specific and your Naomi Campbell example is just plain moronic.
 
Southern Man said:
Its not a fundamental right. You only get to have a relationship with a person who wants the same thing. You can pursue Naomi Campbell as long as you want, but unless she allows you to you'll be otherwise arrested for stalking.
Click to expand...


:palm:
Straw man. A particularly absurd, irrelevant and stupid one.

Of course, Naomi Campbell has an equal right to marry. You have a right to contract, but that does not mean anyone has to contract with you.

I am not sure if you meant this as a sincere counter argument (if so I feel sorry for you), if you are just trolling or you are attempting to argue against rights in general.
 
SM, you should probably just stick to the one word non-responses if that is the best you got. I am embarassed for you.
 
I'm not familiar with Naomi, but she's kinda hot...

naomi-campbell.jpg
 
gay marriage debate with SM:

its wrong because i say so and because like its a slipperty slope

um, maybe wrong, but why deny a secular marriage license to homosexuals

becaues it distorts and ruins our country and because like its a slipperty slope

i see, so heterosexual marriage has done wonders for the family unit in this country

why add another bad thing to marriage and because like its a slipperty slope

but what about britney and those who marry over and over

again, the slipperty slope, we already have that ruining our marriages, gays will only ruin it worser


see folks....its all about the slippity do da slipperty slope....problem is....the slope is defined and only those engaging in legal activity, in that, between spouses, can get married. i want government out of marriage...civil unions for all....in california we have 18,000 homosexual marriages since 2008, yet, nothing has.....gasp......destroyed marriages
 
Socrtease said:
Wanting Naomi Campbell is not a right, it is a desire. But marrying someone that wants to marry you IS a fundamental right. You confuse specific desires with general desires. Most people desire to marry. That right does not get anymore specific and your Naomi Campbell example is just plain moronic.
Click to expand...
By your logic, wanting a queer is not a right, but a desire.
 
RStringfield said:
SM, you should probably just stick to the one word non-responses if that is the best you got. I am embarassed for you.
Click to expand...

SM has learned to give vague, one-words answers and then claim people misrepreset what he said when he is shown to be wrong.

Its sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top