All Things SCOTUS

[Bishop2b5]

Come on Bishop, he said that gay marriage should be revisited. That is a fucking abhorrent take to have. I'm sorry if it rocks the proverbial boat, but that is a braindead take to have and quite honestly slightly shocking that you and #1 haven't called out that position. I expected it from the other two but not you guys.

Do you think gay marriage should be revisited? Focus on what he said.

I can't get into a long Internet argument tonight as I'm about to head out to dinner with my youngest daughter, but I'll leave you with this to consider. Regardless of whether you believe gay marriage should be protected, recent rulings on it revisited, or it should be totally banned, painting anyone you disagree with on it as a backwards, uneducated, cretin is problematic. Remember that even Obama, Hillary, and the vast majority of the icons of the Democratic party were opposed to gay marriage only a few years ago. Obama openly opposed gay marriage during his 2008 campaign. So did Hillary. So did most of the ones now championing it. Were they backwards, uneducated, homophobic cretins?

 

[TorontoGold]

I can't get into a long Internet argument tonight as I'm about to head out to dinner with my youngest daughter, but I'll leave you with this to consider. Regardless of whether you believe gay marriage should be protected, recent rulings on it revisited, or it should be totally banned, painting anyone you disagree with on it as a backwards, uneducated, cretin is problematic. Remember that even Obama, Hillary, and the vast majority of the icons of the Democratic party were opposed to gay marriage only a few years ago. Obama openly opposed gay marriage during his 2008 campaign. So did Hillary. So did most of the ones now championing it. Were they backwards, uneducated, homophobic cretins?

Yes they were.

You're allowed to be critical of those you share some political beliefs with. Especially if the year starts with a 2.

 

[Sea Turtle]

It should be left up to the voters and their elected officials. What could be more democratic than that?

We are still we the people, right?

 

[Blazers46]

Come on Toronto, don't argue in bad faith. You know his point is that The Constitution doesn't protect any of them. Focusing on the wording instead of the point is a cheap diversionary tactic to avoid serious discussion of a point or idea that one doesn't agree with.

Take it easy on him. He’s taken some bad losses and needs an easy win 😉

 

[Sea Turtle]

Come on Bishop, he said that gay marriage should be revisited. That is a fucking abhorrent take to have. I'm sorry if it rocks the proverbial boat, but that is a braindead take to have and quite honestly slightly shocking that you and #1 haven't called out that position. I expected it from the other two but not you guys.

Do you think gay marriage should be revisited? Focus on what he said.

Maybe you are the one who is being unreasonable here.
You're not even a US citizen and have the gall to call out everyone on here, who are citizens, who doesn't agree with you on US law.
Thats bizarre and inappropriat in itself. Let alone your insults. Get a life and worry about YOUR OWN country.

Yeah I know, you have friends down here. Most of us have friends or family in other countries.

 

[GATTACA!]

Maybe you are the one who is being unreasonable here.
You're not even a US citizen and have the gall to call out everyone on here, who are citizens, who doesn't agree with you on US law.
Thats bizarre and inappropriat in itself. Let alone your insults. Get a life and worry about YOUR OWN country.

Yeah I know, you have friends down here. Most of us have friends or family in other countries.

Didn’t the lovely ND grad Coney Barrett say Roe was settled law in her confirmation? Are you disagreeing with her on US law?

 

[TorontoGold]

Maybe you are the one who is being unreasonable here.
You're not even a US citizen and have the gall to call out everyone on here, who are citizens, who doesn't agree with you on US law.
Thats bizarre and inappropriat in itself. Let alone your insults. Get a life and worry about YOUR OWN country.

Yeah I know, you have friends down here. Most of us have friends or family in other countries.

I have friends who are gay, who got married in Maryland. You are saying that you disagree with their marriage. You believe that they should be 2nd class citizens in their own country. That's a brain dead take.

I pay US tax, I'm tax compliant in a country that I don't live in - compared to some posters. Miss me with the "you don't live here so can't have opinions" take.

 

[NorthDakota]

Almost feels cliche to be this much of a backwards hick combined with your username and profile pic.

I dont have a problem with contraception or who people bang. Gay marriage is bleh. Pretty indifferent. The legal opinions supporting those were kinda goofy.

 

[NorthDakota]

Didn’t the lovely ND grad Coney Barrett say Roe was settled law in her confirmation? Are you disagreeing with her on US law?

Settled law can be (and is) overturned.

TIL it's woke to think people should have access to contraception lol.

It's not woke by any means. The idea that the Constitution does not require a state to allow it is not some wild and crazy thing either.

 

[drayer54]

I dont have a problem with contraception or who people bang. Gay marriage is bleh. Pretty indifferent. The legal opinions supporting those were kinda goofy.

It’s just fear-mongering.

Did CNN break away from the Jan 6 hearings to cover this?

 

[Blazers46]

I have friends who are gay, who got married in Maryland. You are saying that you disagree with their marriage. You believe that they should be 2nd class citizens in their own country. That's a brain dead take.

I pay US tax, I'm tax compliant in a country that I don't live in - compared to some posters. Miss me with the "you don't live here so can't have opinions" take.

You can disagree with a lifestyle and still not think of them as second class. I have very good friends that are gay. They know where I stand… it doesn’t bother them.

Congrats on tax compliance, I’ll send you an American Flag bumper sticker. I know this was a shot at me and it’s really sad you keep poking at posters and getting petty.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Didn’t the lovely ND grad Coney Barrett say Roe was settled law in her confirmation? Are you disagreeing with her on US law?

Settled law is overturned from time to time. Especially with problematic rulings.
This is an issue that should be decided via a state referendum or elected state legislatures.
Gay marriage should be an eventually will be as well. And if my state approves these measures, I'll respect and honor it.

 

[Wild Bill]

Gays are still getting married?

 

[NorthDakota]

I have friends who are gay, who got married in Maryland. You are saying that you disagree with their marriage. You believe that they should be 2nd class citizens in their own country. That's a brain dead take.

I pay US tax, I'm tax compliant in a country that I don't live in - compared to some posters. Miss me with the "you don't live here so can't have opinions" take.

Nah. You don't live here. As far as I'm aware, have never lived here? You a US citizen? Legal alien?

 

[NorthDakota]

Come on Bishop, he said that gay marriage should be revisited. That is a fucking abhorrent take to have. I'm sorry if it rocks the proverbial boat, but that is a braindead take to have and quite honestly slightly shocking that you and #1 haven't called out that position. I expected it from the other two but not you guys.

Do you think gay marriage should be revisited? Focus on what he said.

Revisiting gay marriage is far from abhorrent. There are arguments pro and against it. The biggest one against revisiting it would basically be, "it aint hurting anybody, let a sleeping dog lie." AKA, Reliance Interest. The biggest against it would be that marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. I'm assuming pretty universally. It never should have been taken from the states. States have a strong interest in regulating that. Whether you are pro or anti "marriage is between a man and a woman", doesn't really matter. The big thing was it deprived citizens/legislatures of their power to decide it among their own people.

Looking at this thread reminds me of a Thomas quote I'll paraphrase and he may have paraphrased it from someone else too. Something like "lots of good ideas are not constitutional and many bad ideas are constitutional." We've had the better part of a century of people making up rights/powers out of thin air.

Overturning Obergefell doesn't ban gay marriage. It returns the choice to the states. If libs are so confident that it's a positive for society and it is as popular as it is, then it would be passed by legislatures of the many states in short order.

 

[GATTACA!]

Revisiting emancipation is far from abhorrent. There are arguments pro and against it. The biggest one against revisiting it would basically be, "it aint hurting anybody, let a sleeping dog lie." AKA, Reliance Interest. The biggest against it would be that slavery has historically been accepted. I'm assuming pretty universally. It never should have been taken from the states. States have a strong interest in regulating that. Whether you are pro or anti "slavery", doesn't really matter. The big thing was it deprived citizens/legislatures of their power to decide it among their own people.

Looking at this thread reminds me of a Thomas quote I'll paraphrase and he may have paraphrased it from someone else too. Something like "lots of good ideas are not constitutional and many bad ideas are constitutional." We've had the better part of a century of people making up rights/powers out of thin air.

Overturning the 13th Amendment doesn't allow slavery. It returns the choice to the states. If libs are so confident that it's a positive for society and it is as popular as it is, then it would be passed by legislatures of the many states in short order.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Revisiting emancipation is far from abhorrent. There are arguments pro and against it. The biggest one against revisiting it would basically be, "it aint hurting anybody, let a sleeping dog lie." AKA, Reliance Interest. The biggest against it would be that slavery has historically been accepted. I'm assuming pretty universally. It never should have been taken from the states. States have a strong interest in regulating that. Whether you are pro or anti "slavery", doesn't really matter. The big thing was it deprived citizens/legislatures of their power to decide it among their own people.

Looking at this thread reminds me of a Thomas quote I'll paraphrase and he may have paraphrased it from someone else too. Something like "lots of good ideas are not constitutional and many bad ideas are constitutional." We've had the better part of a century of people making up rights/powers out of thin air.

Overturning the 13th Amendment doesn't allow slavery. It returns the choice to the states. If libs are so confident that it's a positive for society and it is as popular as it is, then it would be passed by legislatures of the many states in short order.

You lose people when you compare the states' decision of same sex marriage to the horrors of human bondage.
It's not even in the same universe.

 

[GATTACA!]

You lose people when you compare the states' decision of same sex marriage to the horrors of human bondage.
It's not even in the same universe.

I'm not saying the two are commensurate. Obviously being subjugated is far more serious and horrific than being unable to get married. My point was that the argument NorthDakota is trying to make against gay marriage can be copy and pasted and reused for any of these topics. Revert the decisions back to local legislatures because we know the governments in these shithole states will trample the rights the way we want them to be trampled.

 

[irishff1014]

Maxine Waters says "they will be here in the millions, The hell with the supreme court, we'll defy them" .

So now Jan 6th is no longer an issue right?

 

[Blazers46]

I'm not saying the two are commensurate. Obviously being subjugated is far more serious and horrific than being unable to get married. My point was that the argument NorthDakota is trying to make against gay marriage can be copy and pasted and reused for any of these topics. Revert the decisions back to local legislatures because we know the governments in these shithole states will trample the rights the way we want them to be trampled.

I feel like the convo is going in circles.

This is where I laid out there are arguments saying being gay is a choice and being black is something you are born into.

SeaTurtle then says being gay is just as constitutional as dog marriage, clown marriage, and polygamy.

Toronto then gets his pantries in a wad for comparing gay marriage to other deviant marriages.

SeeTurtle then tries to explain what Gattaca said, that the two are not “commensurate” (great word by the way).

Toronto doubles down

SeaTurtle goes to work

I'll ask Toronto why he isn’t a fan of polygamy because it falls under the same logic as “it doesn’t affect me, love is love, who are we to judge”

He won't answer and tries to spin it by asking my opinion on gay marriage

Toronto calls people names

Gattaca calls people names

Toronto says chill, I can be a third grader if someone says anything I disagree with about gay marriage because of these two dudes in Maryland

SeaTurtle/Dakota then explains the basis gay marriage could be revisited

Gattaca compared revisiting gay marriage saying they could then find an excuse to revisit slavery.

SeaTurtle says comparing the two is bad

Gattaca explains slavery and gay marriage isn’t the same (thank God)

Here we are…

 

[Blazers46]

Maxine Waters says "they will be here in the millions, The hell with the supreme court, we'll defy them" .

So now Jan 6th is no longer an issue right?

We are back to condoning riots. Welcome back 2020.

 

[drayer54]

We are back to condoning riots. Welcome back 2020.

We all knew Democrats were virtue signaling liars when they freaked out over Jan 6th. We’re back to normalizing this crap.

 

[greyhammer90]

Sorry, are we saying that January 6th isn't a big deal because there are other protests happening elsewhere now? If someone breaks the law, arrest them and apply the law to them. That's the whole point of many of these protests.

Also, any attempt to describe being upset at the January 6th tragedy as "virtue signaling" is such a despicably petulant sentiment. Officers were killed. Congress was a few doors away from a violent mob. Secret service agents were forced to gun down a citizen and barricade doors in our own house. Douchebag conspiracy theorist in cosplay were taking photos in areas of solemn significance to our peoples history. Our sitting President was claiming that the election was fraudulent, and was openly taking steps to overturn our most sacred tradition of a peaceful transition without any significant evidence in support of his claims and despite the pleas from those in his cabinet. America had never appeared weaker and our country's enemies were gleeful that the great experiment was melting down.

If your first gut reaction to seeing other violent and non-violent protests is to begin to justify that day, seriously accept this hearty "fuck you" from me personally.

 

[Rockin’Irish]

Hopefully we are saying that all protests that turn violent should be deemed unacceptable.

 

[greyhammer90]

Hopefully we are saying that all protests that turn violent should be deemed unacceptable.

Not trying to be hard on you, but that's an uncontroversial opinion that is easily said without making reference to January 6th. To read the above posts as only making such a blasé statement is to purposefully ignore the obvious.

 

[DCDomer]

Hes not wrong though.

Your seeming obsession with denying people rights is borderline-creepy. You okay?

 

[Bishop2b5]

Not trying to be hard on you, but that's an uncontroversial opinion that is easily said without making reference to January 6th. To read the above posts as only making such a blasé statement is to purposefully ignore the obvious.

The issue for those of us on the Right is that when, the summer before, there were several much larger, VASTLY more violent, destructive, and deadly protests and riots directed at innocent citizens as well as local, state, and Federal facilities and operations, yet those of you screaming the loudest now about Jan 6th and exaggerating it the most were quiet as church mice about that. So, give us a break on the hypocrisy and virtue signaling and faux outrage.

 

[greyhammer90]

The issue for those of us on the Right is that when, the summer before, there were several much larger, VASTLY more violent, destructive, and deadly protests and riots directed at innocent citizens as well as local, state, and Federal facilities and operations, yet those of you screaming the loudest now about Jan 6th and exaggerating it the most were quiet as church mice about that. So, give us a break on the hypocrisy and virtue signaling and faux outrage.

That's where you're always twisted. Anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview MUST be performatively virtue signaling or pretending to be outraged for their political side. It's weird that you have this suspicion that people are being insincere in this way. It's almost as if...

Btw I was clear in the summer of 2020 that anyone caught breaking the law while protesting should be immediately arrested. I also expressed concerns that the federal government agencies were overstepping their bounds by sending the national guard into states that did not ask for It. I was immediately called a "pearl clutcher" by... you lol. Shocking for a card-carrying conservative such as yourself to wave away concerns to federal intervention on a state policing issue, but I'm guessing Party "trumps" principles for you everytime. (Pun intended.)

So, since I've been clear that I hope violent protestors all get arrested and charged per the law, am I allowed to have an opinion on the January 6th riot?

 

[irishff1014]

Sorry, are we saying that January 6th isn't a big deal because there are other protests happening elsewhere now? If someone breaks the law, arrest them and apply the law to them. That's the whole point of many of these protests.

Also, any attempt to describe being upset at the January 6th tragedy as "virtue signaling" is such a despicably petulant sentiment. Officers were killed. Congress was a few doors away from a violent mob. Secret service agents were forced to gun down a citizen and barricade doors in our own house. Douchebag conspiracy theorist in cosplay were taking photos in areas of solemn significance to our peoples history. Our sitting President was claiming that the election was fraudulent, and was openly taking steps to overturn our most sacred tradition of a peaceful transition without any significant evidence in support of his claims and despite the pleas from those in his cabinet. America had never appeared weaker and our country's enemies were gleeful that the great experiment was melting down.

If your first gut reaction to seeing other violent and non-violent protests is to begin to justify that day, seriously accept this hearty "fuck you" from me personally.

I have said my self that i don't agree with the way the Jan 6th deal went down. Also, I haven't voice my opinion on the abortion topic for the simple reason i don't feel like arguing with people.

But it's funny that protest are only good when certain people want it to be.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

The issue for those of us on the Right is that when, the summer before, there were several much larger, VASTLY more violent, destructive, and deadly protests and riots directed at innocent citizens as well as local, state, and Federal facilities and operations, yet those of you screaming the loudest now about Jan 6th and exaggerating it the most were quiet as church mice about that. So, give us a break on the hypocrisy and virtue signaling and faux outrage.

Why do you think any Americans should care what a Confederate traitor like you thinks? You and your ilk have hated this country for over 160 years. January 6 was your chance for “the South to rise again” and you failed miserably. Now you go out of your way to downplay everything that happened that day. You try to compare it to any other riots when you know goddamn well that THERE ARE NO COMPARISONS! It’s too bad the Union armies didn’t raze everything south of the Mason-Dixon.