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 VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Bob Gray said:
Did you read the article?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read about a state judge spouting off in a way that will not be taken seriously. Is that the inevitable result you are despairing about. And is a supreme court decision your example of reaching into more and more things. I know you are never anxious to talk specifics, Bob, but is that what you meant?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Childish poster approves of childish judge--shocking.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Bob Gray said:
An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
Click to expand...

It's inevitable that judges will decide not to judge and INVITE the SCOTUS to intervene in things like this? That's what the judge is doing.

If you want the government to reach more and more into your states lives, then go ahead, don't judge. Let the feds decide for you. But don't get your pants in a bunch that they are intervening when the judge clearly is punting on the decision- someone has to.

I don't understand that position.

The only part of the law that the SCOTUS overruled was that you can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman, just as long as it's two people. Says nothing about the rest of the rules. If a judge decides that there's more to it than that, and is not willing to judge, well step down and let someone have some confidence that being a Judge is to judge something. And don't complain when you don't judge, and then someone has to intervene.
 
alfablue said:
It's inevitable that judges will decide not to judge and INVITE the SCOTUS to intervene in things like this? That's what the judge is doing.

If you want the government to reach more and more into your states lives, then go ahead, don't judge. Let the feds decide for you. But don't get your pants in a bunch that they are intervening when the judge clearly is punting on the decision- someone has to.

I don't understand that position.

The only part of the law that the SCOTUS overruled was that you can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman, just as long as it's two people. Says nothing about the rest of the rules. If a judge decides that there's more to it than that, and is not willing to judge, well step down and let someone have some confidence that being a Judge is to judge something. And don't complain when you don't judge, and then someone has to intervene.
Click to expand...

It won't go to SCOTUS, Tennessee's appellate courts will handle it fine.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
It won't go to SCOTUS, Tennessee's appellate courts will handle it fine.
Click to expand...

It may not, but that's what the judge is claiming will happen, so he's not judging. His lack of judgment costs a lot of money, because it has to go to an appellate court, in a case that was highly unlikely that it would. So not only is the judge inviting intervention, he's wasting money. So much for trying to get a small government that does not waste money.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I think Bob was referring to the case of SCOTUS v. Murican, 666 Bob 1 (2013). In SCOTUS, the Supreme Court filed suit against Murican, claiming it had the right (and even the responsibility) to reach into Murican's things wherever they could be found. Having original jurisdiction in cases in which itself was the Plaintiff, SCOTUS ruled in favor of itself, granting itself even further powers to not only reach into Murican's things but to fondle them. Justice Scalia authored the opinion, stating that he was still ****ed at the Court's mistaken decision not to reach into Terri Schiavo's things when asked to do so by A Lot of Republicans.

Murican has filed a writ of certiorari with a Higher Power. No word on when that decision will come down.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

burd said:
I think Bob was referring to the case of SCOTUS v. Murican, 666 Bob 1 (2013). In SCOTUS, the Supreme Court filed suit against Murican, claiming it had the right (and even the responsibility) to reach into Murican's things wherever they could be found. Having original jurisdiction in cases in which itself was the Plaintiff, SCOTUS ruled in favor of itself, granting itself even further powers to not only reach into Murican's things but to fondle them. Justice Scalia authored the opinion, stating that he was still ****ed at the Court's mistaken decision not to reach into Terri Schiavo's things when asked to do so by A Lot of Republicans.

Murican has filed a writ of certiorari with a Higher Power. No word on when that decision will come down.
Click to expand...

Bob may have, but the judge clearly was not.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

burd said:
Yeah, I read about a state judge spouting off in a way that will not be taken seriously. Is that the inevitable result you are despairing about. And is a supreme court decision your example of reaching into more and more things. I know you are never anxious to talk specifics, Bob, but is that what you meant?
Click to expand...
See, if you and the troll brigade weren't so smarmy, I might make more of an effort to respond to you. Wishful thinking. :rolleyes:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Bob Gray said:
An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
Click to expand...

You really don't see the problem of one State recognizing one marriage and another state not recognizing it?

That article was written about a Judge who clearly has been taking too much crack.

My favorite last night was the conservative who was telling everyone that pastors, priests, and other clergy were going to be forced to marry gay people if it's against their beliefs. Even when reminded that clergy do not have to marry hetero couples if they don't want to the nut job still continued to fan the flames.

Man, this is a stupid issue.
 
Last edited:
alfablue said:
It's inevitable that judges will decide not to judge and INVITE the SCOTUS to intervene in things like this? That's what the judge is doing.

If you want the government to reach more and more into your states lives, then go ahead, don't judge. Let the feds decide for you. But don't get your pants in a bunch that they are intervening when the judge clearly is punting on the decision- someone has to.

I don't understand that position.

The only part of the law that the SCOTUS overruled was that you can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman, just as long as it's two people. Says nothing about the rest of the rules. If a judge decides that there's more to it than that, and is not willing to judge, well step down and let someone have some confidence that being a Judge is to judge something. And don't complain when you don't judge, and then someone has to intervene.
Click to expand...

Alfa

Did the SCOTUS specify 2 to make a marriage?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

No, the restriction of just man-woman was lifted.

As far as I see it, all the ruling did was that. Age rules still apply, numbers still applied, close relative rules apply, etc. Like lifting the ban on race, this just lifted the restriction on gender.

That's it.

Did I miss some of the opinion? That's all that was challenged anyway.
 
Last edited:
alfablue said:
No, the restriction of just man-woman was lifted.

As far as I see it, all the ruling did was that. Age rules still apply, numbers still applied, close relative rules apply, etc. Like lifting the ban on race, this just lifted the restriction on gender.

That's it.

Did I miss some of the opinion? That's all that was challenged anyway.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. That's all it did.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I wonder what Kim Davis' reaction would be if she went to Wendy's and ordered a Baconator, but the guy behind the counter wouldn't put bacon on it because eating pork goes against the shift manager's deeply held religious beliefs?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
I wonder what Kim Davis' reaction would be if she went to Wendy's and ordered a Baconator, but the guy behind the counter wouldn't put bacon on it because eating pork goes against the shift manager's deeply held religious beliefs?
Click to expand...


My guess is before she got famous she would have made a stink and demanded to be served, but now she'd be fully supportive so she doesn't appear ridiculously hypocritical.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
I wonder what Kim Davis' reaction would be if she went to Wendy's and ordered a Baconator, but the guy behind the counter wouldn't put bacon on it because eating pork goes against the shift manager's deeply held religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
I hope she's harassed for a long time with people doing all manner of refusals to serve her.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Huckabee and some other guy are going to be leading a protest on Tuesday in Grayson, KY to demand Davis' release.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Legal Beagles -- what is an immoral / illegal law and is it the duty of a citizen / office holder to oppose such a law? We have examples in the military where it is the duty of the soldier not to obey an illegal order. Does the same admonishment extend into the civilian sector?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

ShirtlessBob said:
Huckabee and some other guy are going to be leading a protest on Tuesday in Grayson, KY to demand Davis' release.
Click to expand...

I hope those fvcksticks are reverse-trolled with massive amounts of dreaded same-sex kissing. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top