We need to appeal this supreme court ruling on gay marriage

[thraashman]

Dude they are going to club you on this in this forum, the bastion of PC libruls.

Well this ruling is basic human decency, if you want to say that's the bastion of liberals, I won't fight you on that.

The only problem with gay marriage is that people care more about it than they care about being raped by wall street banks. Hopefully with the supreme court ruling, it will jsut sort of fade away to where it belongs. But of course people dont care about how bad they are raped by megacorporations, congress, and the banks. As long as they can feel better about themselves for not buggering someone in the bunghole like those dudes down the street.

I don't think people don't care, but people focus on multiple issues at once and celebrate the victories as they come. Are banks a problem? Yes, of course. We need to work on fixing income equality and ending the stupidity that is trickle down theory. I personally feel gay marriage was one of the biggest issue of the day because it was a civil rights issues. The law didn't recognize people equally in both practice and policy. Technically in policy the banks don't possess more rights, just in practice. So it's a less direct fight there as well.

 

[werepossum]

^ Incorrect ^

Correct

lmao +1

 

[zinfamous]

Dude they are going to club you on this in this forum, the bastion of PC libruls.

c'mon man, let's go get gay married, you and I. I hear it's the cool thing to do now.

 

[Sonikku]

Homosexuality is wrong guys. I know most of the world agrees with me on this. It's wrong. Would you want your son or daughter to be a homosexual? No you wouldn't. We need to get a petition or go through the proper channels to fight this. I'm not alone on this.

Thanks

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[Fenixgoon]

10/10!

Would get trolled again!

prettymuch my thoguhts as well

 

[piasabird]

What we need is the chance to vote the Supreme Court Jesters out of office like we have at the state level at every election. We might also give them term limits. We also need non-politicians voting or appointing justices into office.

 

[piasabird]

We need the option to vote supreme court jesters out of office every year. Term limits might be nice.

 

[Atreus21]

You can't "appeal" a ruling of the Supreme Court.

I mean I guess you can try to force the issue by passing a law that directly contradicts it, then having that work it's way back to the SCOTUS. Whether or not they hear it is another question.

That's how Roe v. Wade got mitigated in Gonzales v. Carhart.

 

[Rustler]

Article 5 states convetion could get that done

 

[WHAMPOM]

Homosexuality is wrong guys. I know most of the world agrees with me on this. It's wrong. Would you want your son or daughter to be a homosexual? No you wouldn't. We need to get a petition or go through the proper channels to fight this. I'm not alone on this.

Thanks

That's just your conservative self-hate talking, come out of the closet and all will be well.

 

[zinfamous]

What we need is the chance to vote the Supreme Court Jesters out of office like we have at the state level at every election. We might also give them term limits. We also need non-politicians voting or appointing justices into office.

No, that is absurd. Elected Judges, at any level, injects inherently illegal bias in a constitutional republic. No judge, no justice, should ever be elected, and this goes to the state level and all federal levels.

Any judge that serves an ideal (a campaign platform) above their sworn oath to serve the consitution and the law is not doing their job.

SCOTUS justices opinions are, indeed, quite powerful. Their decisions can and certainly do effect citizens in life-changing ways. This effect of their opinions, however, should not be confused with their role--which is to interpret the constitution and insure that lawmakers do not violate the constitution in the implementation of their laws. SCOTUS justices do not serve the people--they serve the constitution. That is all.

I think it is easy for small-minded people to look at decisions they disagree with as bias towards personal opinion, or serving an agenda. Now, in the case of someone like Scalia, this is probably more true than not, but I think he is a real anomaly in the history of Justices. Among the known conservatives on the court, he really is an outlier. I don't agree with a lot of things that Roberts has said, but I think he has been an effective justice and relatively logical in his arguments, despite something as egregious as Citizen's United. Same goes for Alito.


That being said....term limits. I certainly agree there. I forget who put forward this reform, maybe it was Romney or might have even been Bush II, but the suggestion that Jsutices be appointed to 16 year terms, at which point they would have to step down to a lower court seat, but are again eligible for re-appointment to SCOTUS after a 4, or even 8 year hiatus. It limits each president to no more than a possible 2 (maybe 3? math is hard) appointments within an 8 year term. It seems to me the most reasonable way to limit perceived long-term ideological bias on a court, where one president and one party can effectively shift power for decades, merely due to the random laws of nature (a several year period where 3 or 4 of those codgers die and need to be replaced).

 

[Subyman]

Guys, its wrong, guys, I swear, my dad told me it was very bad and my pastor too.

*rolls eyes*

 

[ivwshane]

Homosexuality is wrong guys. I know most of the world agrees with me on this. It's wrong. Would you want your son or daughter to be a homosexual? No you wouldn't. We need to get a petition or go through the proper channels to fight this. I'm not alone on this.

Thanks

Then don't be a homo.



/thread

 

[lotus503]

I have a gay daughter and I'm very happy with the supreme court ruling. I will proudly walk her down the aisle when she decides to get married.

that's because while we don't always agree your a pretty decent human and use logic and reason.

Your daughter is pretty lucky!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We need the option to vote supreme court jesters out of office every year. Term limits might be nice.

Great rich guys and PAC's could then spend BILLIONS in those elections just because they are good Americans and stuff, they don't actually want any favors or special treatment.

 

[MovingTarget]

Free iPod?

Sorry, but even if you think homosexuality is wrong, "wrong" ≠ "should be illegal". Laws should be in place to make society function effectively, not to be some sort of ultimate moral arbiter.

You can't appeal SCOTUS anyway. You want to pass a constitutional amendment banning the possibility of marriage between two individuals of the same sex, knock yourself out. If you want to remove the religious connotation of marriage from the government altogether to make it clear that the government only recognizes civil unions, go ahead. I'd like to see social conservatives try that on a national level, because they would get absolutely creamed in the next election cycle. Do it, please.

Until then, I'm waiting on instructions for obtaining said free iPod from the OP.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Are you kidding? If my daughter wants to marry a woman, that would be awesome. Traditionally, the parents of the bride foot the bill for most of the wedding, so a second bride would save me a bundle.

 

[JSt0rm]

We need the option to vote supreme court jesters out of office every year. Term limits might be nice.

Thats a horrible idea from a simple mind.

 

[JSt0rm]

I mean I guess you can try to force the issue by passing a law that directly contradicts it, then having that work it's way back to the SCOTUS. Whether or not they hear it is another question.

That's how Roe v. Wade got mitigated in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Do people just not know how government works?

The only way to "fix" a supreme court judgement is to create an amendment to the us constitution. To do this you need 2/3rds of the states to ratify the new amendment.

 

[First]

Article 5 states convetion could get that done

No actually, a convention of the states would be far more likely to end up in amendments to the constitution protecting gay rights, not the opposite. Public opinion and legislatures aren't going back to the 50's. Cat's out of the bag.

 

[Subyman]

Thats a horrible idea from a simple mind.

Supreme court finds against his opinion = change the entire foundation of the US government :hmm:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Article 5 states convetion could get that done

Sure it could. All you need is three fourths of the States to vote in favor of the proposed Amendment. That's 38 states voting to make gay marriage Constitutionally illegal. Which 38 states do you see doing that? Because all you need is 13 voting against it to render this option null and void. California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Maine, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Connecticut are NEVER voting for that amendment... so you're never going to get a three fourths majority.

Apart from that tiny hitch, I suppose you're right.

 

[Indus]

Are you kidding? If my daughter wants to marry a woman, that would be awesome. Traditionally, the parents of the bride foot the bill for most of the wedding, so a second bride would save me a bundle.

I sure hope you never have a Thai daughter in law. Not only does the groom have to pay for the wedding, he also has to pay a dowry.

But besides that cheers! :biggrin:

 

[werepossum]

No, that is absurd. Elected Judges, at any level, injects inherently illegal bias in a constitutional republic. No judge, no justice, should ever be elected, and this goes to the state level and all federal levels.

Any judge that serves an ideal (a campaign platform) above their sworn oath to serve the consitution and the law is not doing their job.

SCOTUS justices opinions are, indeed, quite powerful. Their decisions can and certainly do effect citizens in life-changing ways. This effect of their opinions, however, should not be confused with their role--which is to interpret the constitution and insure that lawmakers do not violate the constitution in the implementation of their laws. SCOTUS justices do not serve the people--they serve the constitution. That is all.

I think it is easy for small-minded people to look at decisions they disagree with as bias towards personal opinion, or serving an agenda. Now, in the case of someone like Scalia, this is probably more true than not, but I think he is a real anomaly in the history of Justices. Among the known conservatives on the court, he really is an outlier. I don't agree with a lot of things that Roberts has said, but I think he has been an effective justice and relatively logical in his arguments, despite something as egregious as Citizen's United. Same goes for Alito.


That being said....term limits. I certainly agree there. I forget who put forward this reform, maybe it was Romney or might have even been Bush II, but the suggestion that Jsutices be appointed to 16 year terms, at which point they would have to step down to a lower court seat, but are again eligible for re-appointment to SCOTUS after a 4, or even 8 year hiatus. It limits each president to no more than a possible 2 (maybe 3? math is hard) appointments within an 8 year term. It seems to me the most reasonable way to limit perceived long-term ideological bias on a court, where one president and one party can effectively shift power for decades, merely due to the random laws of nature (a several year period where 3 or 4 of those codgers die and need to be replaced).

I don't disagree that judges above the local level should not be elected, but I think you're missing that the two parties now go for maximum ideological fidelity and relative youth, to get the most bang for their buck. Sometimes they don't even bother to nominate those with appellate experience. I agree with term limits though - no one should ever have any position for life. Personally I'd say one term, twelve years max, eight years preferred, no reappointments. Then perhaps SCOTUS wouldn't lag so far behind society.

 

[werepossum]

I sure hope you never have a Thai daughter in law. Not only does the groom have to pay for the wedding, he also has to pay a dowry.

But besides that cheers! :biggrin:

But he gets a refund on the dowry if she turns out to have a penis.

(That joke courtesy of The Hangover II.)