Irrelevant. 

Legally, the Walker decision has not been upheld by a higher court.

Foul ball, the count is still 0-2.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2013 9:50:00 AM (view original):
Irrelevant. 

Legally, the Walker decision has not been upheld by a higher court.

Foul ball, the count is still 0-2.

We're arguing two different points.

Yes, the circuit court's ruling was vacated because the proponents of prop 8 did not have the legal right to appeal. That's a fact.

But it is also a fact that the circuit court did hear the appeal and did uphold Walker's decision at the time.

Those aren't opinions, they are facts.

You seem to think that Waller was biased and that his ruling wasn't legally sound. I say, if he was and it wasn't, wouldn't the case have been overturned on appeal?

First of all, I didn't say that Walker was definitely biased.  I said that his homosexuality and the fact that he was in a long-term SS relationship carries the appearances of a potential conflict of interest.  Any ruling by him on this particular case should be suspect.

Second, I don't know the details of exactly what was argued in the appeal that SCOTUS now says did not take place.

Third, the ONLY time SCOTUS made any kind of ruling in a SSM case (Baker), they said it was not a federal question and that there was no 14th amendment issue.  Walker's ruling clearly contradicts that, 

I don't see how a lower court can overrule a binding SCOTUS decision.  You apparently think it's OK if it fits with your personal worldview.

1) it could be suspect. Do we have any other evidence, like maybe an appeal where his decision was upheld?

2) then google it. It actually happened, there are records.

3) does it "clearly" contradict Baker? Or did Walker address why Baker was not binding over Perry in a pre-trial motion for summary judgement?

4) you don't see it because, as you have pointed out many times, you do not understand constitutional law and are not qualified to give an opinion.

Does one appellate court upholding a decision remove, with any doubt,  the possibility of a biased ruling?

That seems to be a stretch.

Did I say that it removed, without a doubt, the possibility of a biased ruling?

It's just one piece of evidence, but we don't have anything else to go on.

You just keep pointing to it like it's significant.

Do you think OJ Simpson killed his wife?

It is significant.

Yes. But a jury found him not guilty.

So it's possible that the judicial system doesn't always get it right?

Sure.

Obviously, I see where you're going with this, but we have to assume that, for the most part, the judicial system works. Especially when a case is heard twice and decided the same way by two different courts, one of which is a panel of federal appellate judges.

LOL.  Didn't take long.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's decision finding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional opens the door to legalized bigamy and polygamy, conservative Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert suggested Friday.

Gohmert made his comments in his typical week-ending remarks on the House floor, belittling the "holy quintet" of justices who wrote the majority opinion by saying they had broken the wise words of the biblical King Solomon that "there was nothing new under the sun."

The justices, Gohmert said, decided improperly that modern marriage between same-sex couples is a new development that requires equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

And that decision, he argued, will pave the way for multiple-partner marriages.

"Once you move marriage beyond the scope of a man and a woman, you really don't end up with a good place to put a limit," said Gohmert, who also argued that such practices were a mile-marker on a nation's way to the "dustbin of history."

"I think polygamy is wrong, bigamy is wrong, and it's a crime in many places -- but how will that be justifiable now that the court has removed this?" Gohmert said. "There's some [who] believe polygamy is a way to go."

LOL at anyone taking that fucktard Louie Gohmert seriously.

Other awesome things that braindead ************ has said:

From batshit crazy Congressman Louie Gohmert, who says that Obama is bombing Libya to deplete the military so he can call up the private army the health care bill created for him. No, seriously:

It’s a bad bill. And then when you find out that the prior Congress not only passed that 2,800 page bill with all kinds of things in it, including a new president’s commissioned officer corps and non-commissioned officer corps. Do we really need that? I wondered when I read that in the bill. But then when you find out we’re being sent to Libya to use our treasure and American lives there, maybe there’s intention to so deplete the military that we’re going to need that presidential reserve officer commissioned corps and non-commissioned corps that the president can call up on a moment’s notice involuntarily, according to the Obamacare bill.

And:

I talked to a retired FBI agent who said that one of the things they were looking at were terrorist cells overseas who had figured out how to game our system. And it appeared they would have young women, who became pregnant, would get them into the United States to have a baby. They wouldn’t even have to pay anything for the baby. And then they would turn back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, twenty…thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life. ‘Cause they figured out how stupid we are being in this country to allow our enemies to game our system, hurt our economy, get setup in a position to destroy our way of life.

Ignore the messenger, hear the message.  

Dumbass.

Who messenger is matters. If a homeless guy was shouting that on the corner, would you listen? Because Gohmert is only slightly more credible than the homeless guy.