it seems the cali judge has a good reason to overturn.

#3
#3
law, i'm going to say the obvious unfunny joke. 3..2..1..

well, now you can go to cali to get married until the supreme court overturns it.

there, i got it over with.
 
#4
#4
The people of California have voted for a ban, activists judges continue to overrule the will of the people. I don't see any way he could be impartial.
 
#5
#5
making a list of judges who can't rule because of their personal beliefs

1) Gay judges
2) Straight judges
3) married judges
4) Black judges
5) Hispanic judges
6) white judges
7) male judges
8 ) female judges
9) Christian judges
10) Jewish judges
11) agnostic judges

I'm sure there are more I've missed so feel free to add on

volfanjustin said:
The people of California have voted for a ban, activists judges continue to overrule the will of the people. I don't see any way he could be impartial.
Click to expand...

rule of law over mob rule
 
#6
#6
utvolpj said:
making a list of judges who can't rule because of their personal beliefs

1) Gay judges
2) Straight judges
3) married judges
4) Black judges
5) Hispanic judges
6) white judges
7) male judges
8 ) female judges
9) Christian judges
10) Jewish judges
11) agnostic judges

I'm sure there are more I've missed so feel free to add on



rule of law over mob rule
Click to expand...

How about "we the people"? Guess that does not apply anymore.
 
#8
#8
volfanjustin said:
The people of California have voted for a ban, activists judges continue to overrule the will of the people. I don't see any way he could be impartial.
Click to expand...


Saw a study somewhere that said that if you re-worded the Bill of Rights into common every day language, something like 78 percent of American would vote against it.

That the majority like or don't like something has never, and will never, be the guide for what is Constitutional, legal, morally right.

That the majority favor something proves only that it is popular. Nothing more.
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
Saw a study somewhere that said that if you re-worded the Bill of Rights into common every day language, something like 78 percent of American would vote against it.

That the majority like or don't like something has never, and will never, be the guide for what is Constitutional, legal, morally right.

That the majority favor something proves only that it is popular. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the Bill of Rights protect the rights of the citizen. The cradle to grave voters in your party would vote against it.
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
making a list of judges who can't rule because of their personal beliefs

1) Gay judges
2) Straight judges
3) married judges
4) Black judges
5) Hispanic judges
6) white judges
7) male judges
8 ) female judges
9) Christian judges
10) Jewish judges
11) agnostic judges

I'm sure there are more I've missed so feel free to add on
Click to expand...

I believe you have left out the soon to be transgender judges.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
That the majority like or don't like something has never, and will never, be the guide for what is Constitutional, legal, morally right.

That the majority favor something proves only that it is popular. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

While I do not actually disagree with this will you concede that the same line of argument has, and will again, be used by "the other side" when convenient to do so?

As an aside I'm sure there are some who have tagged this to bring back up if you ever find yourself arguing from a popularist slant.
 
#13
#13
hndog609 said:
While I do not actually disagree with this will you concede that the same line of argument has, and will again, be used by "the other side" when convenient to do so?

As an aside I'm sure there are some who have tagged this to bring back up if you ever find yourself arguing from a popularist slant.
Click to expand...


Of course both sides use it when convenient.

My point was really about the latter half of his statement, which appeare dto argue that, by defnition, a judge who rules in a manner that the majority would not is an "activist." And that of course is complete and utter nonsense.
 
#15
#15
IPorange said:
The same arguments were made about segregation.
Click to expand...

And those silly preachers used the Bible to fight against it...how dare they. how dare they inject Bible verses into the public domain. How dare MLK, a preacher, get to speak on the Mall and use scripture as a basis of fighting against racism.
 
#16
#16
CSpindizzy said:
And those silly preachers used the Bible to fight against it...how dare they. how dare they inject Bible verses into the public domain. How dare MLK, a preacher, get to speak on the Mall and use scripture as a basis of fighting against racism.
Click to expand...

I believe the bible was used on both sides
 
#17
#17
utvolpj said:
I believe the bible was used on both sides
Click to expand...

Yes. You're right. But yet certain people who use segregation as an example conveniently forget that "Personal morality" was used to fight segregation. In one case, it should not be allowed. And in the other, it's obviously OK. I'm not arguing "sides". I'm saying that if it were up to the "Keep your religious views to yourself" crowd, we'd still have those different water fountains as IP likes to refer to.
 
#20
#20
CSpindizzy said:
Yes. You're right. But yet certain people who use segregation as an example conveniently forget that "Personal morality" was used to fight segregation. In one case, it should not be allowed. And in the other, it's obviously OK. I'm not arguing "sides". I'm saying that if it were up to the "Keep your religious views to yourself" crowd, we'd still have those different water fountains as IP likes to refer to.
Click to expand...

Except you are advocating for limitations being put on a group, whereas the people you are using as a "gotcha" prop were advocating for the lifting of limitations. I said before in another thread it was about liberty. You then tried to corner me with explaining how speed limits and laws fit into that.

Those fighting against segregation, using a Bible or not, weren't trying to impose their will but rather get the practice of a majority imposing arbitrary rules on a minority to end. So no, I don't have a problem with someone using any means to encourage people all being treated blindly to their race, religion, ethnicity, orientation, socioeconomic class, etc. Call me a hypocrite, I guess.
 
#21
#21
volfanjustin said:
The people of California have voted for a ban, activists judges continue to overrule the will of the people. I don't see any way he could be impartial.
Click to expand...

i really hope you didint say activist judges. this tactic by the right really scares me....straight out of gerbles handbook...

picture.php
 
#22
#22
IPorange said:
Except you are advocating for limitations being put on a group, whereas the people you are using as a "gotcha" prop were advocating for the lifting of limitations. I said before in another thread it was about liberty. You then tried to corner me with explaining how speed limits and laws fit into that.

Those fighting against segregation, using a Bible or not, weren't trying to impose their will but rather get the practice of a majority imposing arbitrary rules on a minority to end. So no, I don't have a problem with someone using any means to encourage people all being treated blindly to their race, religion, ethnicity, orientation, socioeconomic class, etc. Call me a hypocrite, I guess.
Click to expand...

Limits are imposed on groups all the time and are ruled as Constitutional. So if you are arguing against limits you clearly do not understand law and Constitution.

You have this thing with 'being cornered', 'trapped', etc. I can't help it your logic doesn't hold up. It's not about gotcha. It's about consistency. You and others say there is no place for personal values but then turn around and say they are fine IF used within YOUR own personal moral standards. One minute a Biblical basis is not allowed and the next minute it is fine.

And I am waiting for you to define marriage. Call it a trap, cornering you, or whatever you want. But you come on here saying this is about equality in reference to marriage so I ask you again, please define the standard that meets your values and morals that is deemed "equal". Same goes for anyone else on this side.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top