Moore kicked off the bench

#11
#11
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Nice to see. Dude is a grade A jackass.
Click to expand...

Marriage shouldn't be a Federal issue anyways. And really, you can make a case for the state to not be involved in marriages. But, with the 10th Amendment and what not, at the very least, the state should have had sovereignty over this issue since it doesn't involve a violation of anyone's Constitutional rights.

Am I missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Rasputin_Vol said:
Marriage shouldn't be a Federal issue anyways. And really, you can make a case for the state to not be involved in marriages. But, with the 10th Amendment and what not, at the very least, the state should have had sovereignty over this issue since it doesn't involve a violation of anyone's Constitutional rights.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

He's sworn to uphold the Constitution. Courts have ruled on his actions and he's ignoring the court rulings. He could pursue this through the system but instead takes the law into his own hands.

He did the same thing with the 10 Commandments issue.

He is not qualified to hold the position if he refuses to abide by court orders. He's welcome to protest all he likes as a private citizen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Rifleman, MercyPercy and 3 others
#13
#13
Rasputin_Vol said:
Marriage shouldn't be a Federal issue anyways. And really, you can make a case for the state to not be involved in marriages. But, with the 10th Amendment and what not, at the very least, the state should have had sovereignty over this issue since it doesn't involve a violation of anyone's Constitutional rights.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Marriage shouldn't be an issue at all, federal or state.

This jackass is trying to prevent people who want to get married from doing so. I side with personal sovereignty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#14
#14
volinbham said:
He's sworn to uphold the Constitution. Courts have ruled on his actions and he's ignoring the court rulings. He could pursue this through the system but instead takes the law into his own hands.

He did the same thing with the 10 Commandments issue.

He is not qualified to hold the position if he refuses to abide by court orders. He's welcome to protest all he likes as a private citizen.
Click to expand...
Why is the Federal court involved in dust up about the 10 Commandments? Do you see my point? The Federal court shouldn't even be involved in those trivial, nonviolent laws that don't violate the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and BucksnortVol
#15
#15
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Marriage shouldn't be an issue at all, federal or state.

This jackass is trying to prevent people who want to get married from doing so. I side with personal sovereignty.
Click to expand...

You're correct, you dont need the state for marriage. My suggestion to the gays would be to just get married anyways. What is stopping 2 people from making a lifetime commitment to each other? The state doesn't have to recognize it.
 
#16
#16
Good...activist judges on both sides need to be recalled...I can think of 9 on SCOTUS I'd like to toss...no damn way every decision should be 5-4 based on their politics.
 
#17
#17
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why is the Federal court involved in dust up about the 10 Commandments? Do you see my point? The Federal court shouldn't even be involved in those trivial, nonviolent laws that don't violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Should is a legal debate. There are mechanisms for the legal debate and Moore is sworn to abide by the outcomes of those mechanisms.

It doesn't make him wrong about the issue but it does mean he is failing to do his job.
 
#18
#18
Rasputin_Vol said:
You're correct, you dont need the state for marriage. My suggestion to the gays would be to just get married anyways. What is stopping 2 people from making a lifetime commitment to each other? The state doesn't have to recognize it.
Click to expand...

The gay community is upset because the legal issues of taxation, inheritance, insurance, etc.
I care not about the idea of same sex unions. The gays were committing and cohabiting since forever, but they needed protection under law. There are those however who will always contend that what that have is secular union only, it is legal under a secular government, but it is not and cannot ever be "marriage" which can only be between one man and one woman. And, evidently now the caveat of; "Whose birth genetics are male and female and not how they 'identify'." has to be applied. Secular laws cannot override spiritual and genetic realities. A secular government can pass and enforce whatever it's citizens demand, and folk who need the protection of legal civil union do demand that.
 
#19
#19
Orangedogsrule said:
The gay community is upset because the legal issues of taxation, inheritance, insurance, etc.
Click to expand...

Taxation: There shouldn't be a marriage penalty or benefit regarding taxes.
Inheritance: That can't be handled in a will or trust?
Insurance: Can't the private sector address this?
 
#20
#20
Rasputin_Vol said:
Taxation: There shouldn't be a marriage penalty or benefit regarding taxes.
Inheritance: That can't be handled in a will or trust?
Insurance: Can't the private sector address this?
Click to expand...

1..not necessarily true. Two parent families are indeed more stable and children get better and less stressful childhoods. Stable families result in fewer kids turning to crime. But unstable families result in more kids turning to crime and that requires more taxes to deal with criminals, and even more taxes to deal with the felons and violent crimes. Tax relief for families is just good sense.

2. Shouldn't be any kind of inheritance tax. But a will must be probated and the death tax paid. Trusts are better at protecting wealth.
The current setup actually works to the detriment of the blue collar middle class. So much of mom and pop's life savings, which was never huge in the first place, goes poof at their death exactly because all they did was jave a good will that must be probated and taxes paid, when they should have set up a family trust with a holding company for possibly an LLC or two within the trust. That is what the wealthy do. And the "death tax" whose original intent was to prevent the development of an American 'wealthy elite' families who only inherit and snowball wealth does not prevent that at all. It does effectively stop the average 'little guy's' decendants from ever accruing a family estate and eventually competing with America's wealthy elite. They could, but they just don't for whatever reasons.

3. Insurance, Soc.Sec, etc. .. the 'surviving spouse' issue. If there's no legal union, well...
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why is the Federal court involved in dust up about the 10 Commandments? Do you see my point? The Federal court shouldn't even be involved in those trivial, nonviolent laws that don't violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Let's say you're right, for the sake of argument.

That's not his call. In fact, the law is that it's not his call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
Let's say you're right, for the sake of argument.

That's not his call. In fact, the law is that it's not his call.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make (in the grand scheme of things) if a court room decides to hang the 10 Commandments up? Is this REALLY what we need Federal courts worried about? What harm is caused by this act? What "crime" has been committed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#23
#23
Rasputin_Vol said:
What difference does it make (in the grand scheme of things) if a court room decides to hang the 10 Commandments up? Is this REALLY what we need Federal courts worried about? What harm is caused by this act? What "crime" has been committed?
Click to expand...


It's an absolute rule, church and state, you can't draw fine distinctions or else the exception shallows the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top