What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Do you have any idea how bigoted, desperate, and paranoid this tripe is?
Click to expand...

You realize he's just trolling, right? At the very best (and if this is the case, I applaud the post) he's going satire on the bit.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

To get back on topic and away from the troll bait...

There are still three cases left for the term: One involves the EPA and air emissions, one involves the drug cocktail for the death penalty in Oklahoma, and one is the Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee one. All three could be big in their own right, especially the AZ one. The death penalty one likely is only interesting if the majority is Kennedy + the liberals; if it's not, then it's probably essentially a case maintaining the status quo.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

unofan,

Not to stray off topic a bit but how can the states (like say Texas) attorney generals say their state workers can refuse to give out same sex marriage licenses? Isnt that act now unconstitutional? Arent they opening themselves up to lawsuits?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Handyman said:
unofan,

Not to stray off topic a bit but how can the states (like say Texas) attorney generals say their state workers can refuse to give out same sex marriage licenses? Isnt that act now unconstitutional? Arent they opening themselves up to lawsuits?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how the gay laws (state/fed) compare to the weed laws (state/fed). Isn't it kind of the same difference? /honestquestion
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Jimjamesak said:
The weed laws are not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
But drugs are people too, my friend.
<img src=http://latinorebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Mitt-Romney-Announces-Intention-to-Run-in-2012-US-Presidential-Race.jpg></img>
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Handyman said:
unofan,

Not to stray off topic a bit but how can the states (like say Texas) attorney generals say their state workers can refuse to give out same sex marriage licenses? Isnt that act now unconstitutional? Arent they opening themselves up to lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Attorneys general take an oath to uphold the constitution I suspect. Grounds for termination, but the guv will be from the same Toothless Holler Clan.

But you asked the right guy for answers.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Handyman said:
unofan,

Not to stray off topic a bit but how can the states (like say Texas) attorney generals say their state workers can refuse to give out same sex marriage licenses? Isnt that act now unconstitutional? Arent they opening themselves up to lawsuits?
Click to expand...

That's what the Texas AG actually did. "Feel free to refuse, but you'll probably get sued "
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Handyman said:
unofan,

Not to stray off topic a bit but how can the states (like say Texas) attorney generals say their state workers can refuse to give out same sex marriage licenses? Isnt that act now unconstitutional? Arent they opening themselves up to lawsuits?
Click to expand...

They can't, with the theoretical exception that the entire state gets out of the marriage business all together, which was floated by a few nut jobs in Alabama and maybe elsewhere. Even then, given that marriage is considered a fundamental right, it's highly questionable whether the courts would let states stop issuing marriage licenses. (Not that it would happen anyway, I don't see any political will to screw over millions of heterosexuals just to stick it to the gays).

If you're in an office of 10, and one of the 10 refuses, it's possible that'd be ok legally so long as one of the other 9 is always available. It'd be an extremely dick move, and it certainly wouldn't be required to be allowed by the head of the office, but it could potentially be legal. I worked for a district judge that used gay marriage in Iowa as an excuse to stop performing marriage ceremonies all together. Not because he hated gays, but because he was that lazy. There were plenty of other judges available, so I don't think it ever became an issue.

Brenthoven said:
I'm wondering how the gay laws (state/fed) compare to the weed laws (state/fed). Isn't it kind of the same difference? /honestquestion
Click to expand...

Gay marriage must now be allowed constitutionally via the 14th Amendment. Weed is only banned statutorily. The feds also cannot force local/state police to enforce federal criminal laws. Everyone is bound by the Constitution, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Here's the best quote I've seen post Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

“History moves fast,” Stephen Colbert says in this short monologue critiquing the dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision. “It’s hard to believe that gay Americans achieved full, Constitutional personhood just five years after corporations did.”
Click to expand...
 
burd said:
Attorneys general take an oath to uphold the constitution I suspect. Grounds for termination, but the guv will be from the same Toothless Holler Clan.

But you asked the right guy for answers.
Click to expand...

Unless they disagree with the law. Our previous AG did that and was applauded by quite a few.

Also, see my post from a couple of days ago about if a Ptesident CAN ignore the Supremes.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
Unless they disagree with the law. Our previous AG did that and was applauded by quite a few.

Also, see my post from a couple of days ago about if a Ptesident CAN ignore the Supremes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's possible there might be some hanky panky (or "rock-ribbed Constitutional defense," depending where people stand) while a legislative question hangs in judicial limbo, but once the Court rules specifically on the issue, that really is it. The only recourse now is amendment. Huckabee's statement is simply wrong on the facts, and the Texas AG can, I suppose, say what he wants, but the first lawsuit will take that down. If Texas then refused to comply with that decision, Obama could fulfill ten million conspiracists' Christmas wishes and deploy troops to Austin a la Ike in Little Rock.

But it won't come to that. This will pass, noisily in places where that is politically advantageous. The flag debate may absorb some of the resentment which in the gay case is impotent, and put it to work somewhere where there is at least theoretically a way to resist. But when you've lost Dale Junior and the NRO you've probably lost there, too. I would expect the War on Christmas will come early this year to give these viewpoints a place to vent their spleen.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

My thoughts:

1) I appreciate Flaggy using internet trolling to fill the void of female companionship in his life, but posting Nazi-esque stuff is a bit much. :eek:

2) If states could just refuse to follow SCOTUS rulings on religious grounds, dontcha think someone would have thought of that already? Really, you could use that to not perform interracial marriages or interfaith marriages.

3) Was listening to Ted Cruz on NPR today and the man should be the GOP nominee. Most people just pay lip service to the crazy (Jebbers, Rand Paul, etc). Cruz IS batchit crazy. He's the real thing and he's where the Republican party is nowadays. Crying old corporate drunk The Boner is an 80's Gooper. Cruz is the here and now of the right.
 
Kepler said:
I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's possible there might be some hanky panky (or "rock-ribbed Constitutional defense," depending where people stand) while a legislative question hangs in judicial limbo, but once the Court rules specifically on the issue, that really is it. The only recourse now is amendment. Huckabee's statement is simply wrong on the facts, and the Texas AG can, I suppose, say what he wants, but the first lawsuit will take that down. If Texas then refused to comply with that decision, Obama could fulfill ten million conspiracists' Christmas wishes and deploy troops to Austin a la Ike in Little Rock.
Click to expand...

See my post citing the article in First Things. Then it makes sense.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
See my post citing the article in First Things. Then it makes sense.
Click to expand...

I'll hunt up the link again. BTW, I edited the message you responded to and added a second paragraph to clarify what I thought would happen. I just don't see any way forward for the opponents on this. Once a right is put under the 14th, it's protected. We fought the Civil War to have the 14th enacted, and we'd have to fight a second one to get it repealed, and this is not the issue that would cause that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top