Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I would hope and assume he could put any bias aside he may have to make a sound ruling.

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):
You're ok with a Supreme Court judge being biased in his rulings? Possibly because he profits from it?

I'm OK with knowing that he probably is biased in his rulings for some reason.    Republicans don't appoint liberal judges, Democrats don't appoint conservative judges.   Do you disagree?

Not for the most part but if a Supreme Court justice is showing bias in his decisions because he may profit fom it, we have a problem and its not ok.

Appointing SCJ for life is stupid.   First, I'm sure all of them can make a "sound" argument for ruling one way or another for whatever reason.  Second, the only way to remove them is thru the impeachment process.   You'd never be able to impeach a SCJ based on a ruling that he somehow profits from unless he's cashing checks written to him. 

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I would hope and assume he could put any bias aside he may have to make a sound ruling.

I would hope and assume that any man/woman smart enough to become a judge can make a "sound" argument for any ruling they make.

I would not assume bias was put aside. 

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I didn't say he wasn't biased. Just that it looks like he was able to put aside his personal bias (all judges have some bias) and issue a legally sound ruling.

Dumbass.

SCOTUS did not validate Walker's ruling.

SCOTUS dismissed the appeal on the grounds of standing . . . the folks who were appealing the decision did not have the legal status to make the appeal.

Maybe you should understand the little things, like facts, before posting.

Dumbass.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I didn't say he wasn't biased. Just that it looks like he was able to put aside his personal bias (all judges have some bias) and issue a legally sound ruling.

Dumbass.

SCOTUS did not validate Walker's ruling.

SCOTUS dismissed the appeal on the grounds of standing . . . the folks who were appealing the decision did not have the legal status to make the appeal.

Maybe you should understand the little things, like facts, before posting.

Dumbass.

No **** Sherlock. But the federal appeals court that ruled prior to SCOTUS upheld Walker's decision. That ruling was tossed on the standing grounds.

The Prop 8 case does raise a disturbing issue.

One rogue judge making a possibly biased ruling, in conjunction with a Governor and a state's Attorney General who refuse to defend a law for whatever their own reasons, can override the will of the people.

Unless and until Walker's specific ruling is affirmed ultimately by SCOTUS, it's still an open ended issue and I assume can still be legally challenged.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I didn't say he wasn't biased. Just that it looks like he was able to put aside his personal bias (all judges have some bias) and issue a legally sound ruling.

Dumbass.

SCOTUS did not validate Walker's ruling.

SCOTUS dismissed the appeal on the grounds of standing . . . the folks who were appealing the decision did not have the legal status to make the appeal.

Maybe you should understand the little things, like facts, before posting.

Dumbass.

No **** Sherlock. But the federal appeals court that ruled prior to SCOTUS upheld Walker's decision. That ruling was tossed on the standing grounds.

In other words . . . you still don't understand what happened today.

Got it.

Hmm, why don't you explain it to me then, mr "I don't understand the constitution."

The way I understand it:

Walker tosses prop 8.
Proponents of prop 8 (but not the state) file appeal in federal court.
Federal court upholds Walkers ruling.
Same proponents file appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds.
Walker's decision stands.

Where am I wrong?

It shouldn't need to be the state that appeals Prop 8.  It wasn't enacted by the state.  It was enacted by a popular vote of the citizens.  Those citizens SHOULD have legal grounds to defend their democratic actions.  It absolutely bothers me how things have gone with respect to this proposition.  I don't like the fact that a legally passed Proposition - which I think more states should allow - that doesn't explicitly violate the state or federal Constitutions has basically been invalidated because the same democratically voting public that passed the law isn't legally allowed to defend it.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Hmm, why don't you explain it to me then, mr "I don't understand the constitution."

The way I understand it:

Walker tosses prop 8.
Proponents of prop 8 (but not the state) file appeal in federal court.
Federal court upholds Walkers ruling.
Same proponents file appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds.
Walker's decision stands.

Where am I wrong?

Clearly, you don't understand what happened this morning.  SCOTUS made no ruling about the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Do you think it did?

I live in Connecticut, which is a SSM legal state.  Do you believe that today's ruling prevents an initiative similar to CA's Proposition 8 from going on the ballot in CT (or any other SSM state) for popular vote?

If such an initiative was voted on and passed, and SSM was abolished in CT as a result, that SCOTUS's ruling today automatically kicks in and says that such a vote was unconstitutional, and nullifies the result of the vote?

Think carefully (if at all possible for you) before answering.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
It shouldn't need to be the state that appeals Prop 8.  It wasn't enacted by the state.  It was enacted by a popular vote of the citizens.  Those citizens SHOULD have legal grounds to defend their democratic actions.  It absolutely bothers me how things have gone with respect to this proposition.  I don't like the fact that a legally passed Proposition - which I think more states should allow - that doesn't explicitly violate the state or federal Constitutions has basically been invalidated because the same democratically voting public that passed the law isn't legally allowed to defend it.

+1

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Hmm, why don't you explain it to me then, mr "I don't understand the constitution."

The way I understand it:

Walker tosses prop 8.
Proponents of prop 8 (but not the state) file appeal in federal court.
Federal court upholds Walkers ruling.
Same proponents file appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds.
Walker's decision stands.

Where am I wrong?

Clearly, you don't understand what happened this morning.  SCOTUS made no ruling about the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Do you think it did?

I live in Connecticut, which is a SSM legal state.  Do you believe that today's ruling prevents an initiative similar to CA's Proposition 8 from going on the ballot in CT (or any other SSM state) for popular vote?

If such an initiative was voted on and passed, and SSM was abolished in CT as a result, that SCOTUS's ruling today automatically kicks in and says that such a vote was unconstitutional, and nullifies the result of the vote?

Think carefully (if at all possible for you) before answering.

I didn't say it did. Can you not read?

SCOTUS tossed prop 8 on standing. What the **** are you arguing?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I didn't say he wasn't biased. Just that it looks like he was able to put aside his personal bias (all judges have some bias) and issue a legally sound ruling.

What are we arguing?  This.

SCOTUS did not make any comment on whether Walker's ruling was "legally sound".

You seem to think that they somehow affirmed Walker's ruling.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
You'll just have to take my word for it then.

If you open one judge to scrutiny of bias, make sure you open them all. Is Clarence Thomas conservatively biased because his wife makes money from a Conservative lobby?

Sure, I have no problem with that.   I believe all of us know some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative.   That's pretty much why they're appointed. 

So what exactly are we arguing?

The fact that you don't believe a gay judge in a long-term relationship with another man could be just a little biased regarding SSM.

I didn't say he wasn't biased. Just that it looks like he was able to put aside his personal bias (all judges have some bias) and issue a legally sound ruling.

What are we arguing?  This.

SCOTUS did not make any comment on whether Walker's ruling was "legally sound".

You seem to think that they somehow affirmed Walker's ruling.

Again, no **** Sherlock.

I said the federal appeals court upheld Walkers decision.

His decision was legally sound because it wasn't overturned on that appeal.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/26/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):
The fact that he wants a homosexual marriage. (I'm assuming he does, I don't know for sure)

Neither of us knows that.

Also, the federal court above him upheld the ruling. If his decision hadn't been legally sound, it would have been overturned.

This, you fucktard.