Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So all Conservatives need to do is make all courts into religious courts then they are all set!

Be careful what you wish for

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Itll most likely be 7-2

With No Fun Allowed Scalia and Thomas the 2

You're likely right... not a bitch slap... more like a curb stomp.

Still, a 7-2 ruling is pretty strong.

 Easy E wrote:
So all Conservatives need to do is make all courts into religious courts then they are all set!

Sounds like a plan.

"The Court of the Great Wienie is now in session. All bark!"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that the stand against gay marriage is principally religiously motivated it cannot help but fail in a secular legal system.

The problem with that proposition is that the head of the legal system are actually a group of 9 politicians who pretend to be judges.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that the stand against gay marriage is principally religiously motivated it cannot help but fail in a secular legal system.

The problem with that proposition is that the head of the legal system are actually a group of 9 politicians who pretend to be judges.

Wow... that's kinda... jaded man.

I view them as custodians of their legal profession.

I think this sums up how I feel pretty well on that.

I don't know if I would call the SCOTUS politicians per say as much as people hand picked by real politicians and these actual politicians know exactly what they are doing. Judges are people too and therefore have opinions about politics etc. and guys/ladies in robes are hand picked because of those opinions.

 Ouze wrote:
I think this sums up how I feel pretty well on that.

Yeah, well... that reads to me that the Slate author is a sore loser.

*shrug*

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that the stand against gay marriage is principally religiously motivated it cannot help but fail in a secular legal system.

The problem with that proposition is that the head of the legal system are actually a group of 9 politicians who pretend to be judges.

Wow... that's kinda... jaded man.

I view them as custodians of their legal profession.

If that is what they actually are then they would be merit based promotions instead of ideological positions appointed by ideological like-minded presidents and confirmed by like-minded politicians while being opposed by ideologically opposed politicians who will wait to retire until a like-minded ideological president can replace them with another like-minded judge.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that the stand against gay marriage is principally religiously motivated it cannot help but fail in a secular legal system.

The problem with that proposition is that the head of the legal system are actually a group of 9 politicians who pretend to be judges.

Wow... that's kinda... jaded man.

I view them as custodians of their legal profession.

If that is what they actually are then they would be merit based promotions instead of ideological positions appointed by ideological like-minded presidents and confirmed by like-minded politicians while being opposed by ideologically opposed politicians who will wait to retire until a like-minded ideological president can replace them with another like-minded judge.

Who are also lawyers & judges who respects the Judicial Branch™, co-equal to the Legislatures & Executive Branch of our government.

Many forget the "co-equal" part.

Wonder how an Executive Order would go to pave the road.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how an Executive Order would go to pave the road.

Depends on your point of view....


Conservatives would probably be all up in arms saying "Emperor/King Obama's at it again!!!!! IMPEEEEEEEAAAAAChHHH Him!!!"

Left leaned people would be all "Stupid conservatives, THAT's how you get stuff done"

While most "sane" people would be all, "Feth you Congress, just get this gak over with!"

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only laws perquisite to specific grants of power. Everything else is reserved for the state, or limited in toto under the Bill or RIghts or other Amendments.

For example, under the Constitution the states have the power to regulate alcohol in their state which trumps US law. And baby I'll drink to that!

Unless you live in a dry county, of course.

Wo wo wo thats just crazy talk. The Frazzled does not abide a dry county.

They're swimming in the sand?
Praying for some holy water?
To wash the sins from off our hands?




I'll just show myself out now...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only laws perquisite to specific grants of power. Everything else is reserved for the state, or limited in toto under the Bill or RIghts or other Amendments.

For example, under the Constitution the states have the power to regulate alcohol in their state which trumps US law. And baby I'll drink to that!

Unless you live in a dry county, of course.

Wo wo wo thats just crazy talk. The Frazzled does not abide a dry county.

They're swimming in the sand?
Praying for some holy water?
To wash the sins from off our hands?




I'll just show myself out now...

Dry county means its illegal to sell alcohol in the county limits.
How can I explore the subtle differences between dark rum, bourbons, and Tennessee whiskeys in a dry county?

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only laws perquisite to specific grants of power. Everything else is reserved for the state, or limited in toto under the Bill or RIghts or other Amendments.

For example, under the Constitution the states have the power to regulate alcohol in their state which trumps US law. And baby I'll drink to that!

Unless you live in a dry county, of course.

Wo wo wo thats just crazy talk. The Frazzled does not abide a dry county.

They're swimming in the sand?
Praying for some holy water?
To wash the sins from off our hands?




I'll just show myself out now...

Dry county means its illegal to sell alcohol in the county limits.
How can I explore the subtle differences between dark rum, bourbons, and Tennessee whiskeys in a dry county?

Frazz's musical knowledge is inferior to his whisky knowledge?

 Baragash wrote:

Frazz's musical knowledge is inferior to his whisky knowledge?

That does seem to be the case, yes.

What are you talking about. I am a hep cat down with the freshest notes. Have you heard that new one "Minnie the Moocher." Thats what I call a song.

Topic guys. Topic

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only laws perquisite to specific grants of power. Everything else is reserved for the state, or limited in toto under the Bill or RIghts or other Amendments.

For example, under the Constitution the states have the power to regulate alcohol in their state which trumps US law. And baby I'll drink to that!

Unless you live in a dry county, of course.

Wo wo wo thats just crazy talk. The Frazzled does not abide a dry county.

They're swimming in the sand?
Praying for some holy water?
To wash the sins from off our hands?




I'll just show myself out now...

Dry county means its illegal to sell alcohol in the county limits.
How can I explore the subtle differences between dark rum, bourbons, and Tennessee whiskeys in a dry county?

That is not entirely true. I grew up in a dry county. We had liquor stores. But they could not be within so many feet of a church, cannot sell after certain hours or on certain days, and there were absolutely no bars. Only clubs: The Moose Lodge, The VFW, The American Legion, The Elks, stuff like that.

There will always be those who seek to explain why some Americans don't get the same civil rights as others. Funnily enough, it's happened before. The position of some regarding the word 'marriage' belonging to certain religions makes me embarrassed for them.

I am rather excited to read Justice Scalia's weaselface dissent, should he have the courage to stand by his bizzaro convictions.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only laws perquisite to specific grants of power. Everything else is reserved for the state, or limited in toto under the Bill or RIghts or other Amendments.

For example, under the Constitution the states have the power to regulate alcohol in their state which trumps US law. And baby I'll drink to that!

Unless you live in a dry county, of course.

Wo wo wo thats just crazy talk. The Frazzled does not abide a dry county.

Random anecdote: The Texas side of Texarkana is a dry county. The Arkansas side is not. When I was staying there for work, we were staying in a motel on the Texas side of the road dividing the two counties. It was quite funny. The Texas side of the dividing road was: Motel, motel, motel, hardware store, Target, motel, motel, Subway, motel, Dunkin'Donuts, etc. The Arkansas side was: Liquor store, liquor store, liquor store, watering hole, liquor store, Walmart, liquor store...
Clearly prohibiting the sale of alcohol in your county stops people from drinking there .

On topic: I am not gay,so I have no stake in this. In such cases I tend to err on the side of giving people what they want as long as it doesn't impede anyone else.If two boys (or gals) want to get a piece of paper with some signatures and a pair of rings, who does that hurt?