Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree138Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 7th, 2016, 06:25 AM   #41
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,152
Gay marriage is legal in every state. That will not change. Get over it already.
Camelot is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:49 AM   #42
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
You are aware that after the ratification of the First Amendment several states maintained state sanctioned religion? Hmmmm?
Answering a question with a question... You and JB have adopted similar avoidance techniques.

To answer your question: Yes. That was part of my point.
I'm actually trying to figure out how far down the yellow brick road you and JB are running. It seems you are actually embracing the nonsensical and long abandoned consequences of the bizarre positions you hold (or rather JB holds and you parrot).

Regardless, you two are doomed to a LOT of frustration as cases like this will never go your way and you'll be eternally not understanding why...


Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyB
I am going to have to go all semantics on you. I didn't state that it would stand up, only that he was right. I don't know whi you have read, but the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct, but his ruling will not stand because that is what our system has morphed into.
Would you care to backup your claim of "the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct"?

Or is this another one of those forest for the trees moment where Moore is "right" in something minor and inconsequential (like he spelled his name right) but his overall analysis wouldn't hold water ...

Cause I'm sure he has some decent spelling. He's probably got decent grammar.
But his LEGAL analysis and conclusion simply warrants flushing.


As I pointed out earlier, he's taking other rulings out of context to arrive at conclusions that the original rulings themselves contradict.
Thanks from RNG
foundit66 is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:58 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Here is what can be expected from an internet educated legal social warrior: zero, nada, not happening of pointing out what I took out of context in my post, one iota of evidence that contradicts my post, and a reply with a scintilla of substance.

The Internet: making smart people smarter and dumb people dumber since 1992.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:10 AM   #44
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Here is what can be expected from an internet educated legal social warrior: zero, nada, not happening of pointing out what I took out of context in my post, one iota of evidence that contradicts my post, and a reply with a scintilla of substance.
The Internet: making smart people smarter and dumb people dumber since 1992.
As the first line of your auto-biography goes, it lacks anything that grabs the reader and makes them want to learn more...
... but at least it's 100% accurate!

Back to an actual topical discussion, let's try repeating that question you cower from once again...


Would you care to backup your claim of "the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct"?


Or is this another one of those forest for the trees moment where Moore is "right" in something minor and inconsequential (like he spelled his name right) but his overall analysis wouldn't hold water ...
Thanks from RNG
foundit66 is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:18 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
As the first line of your auto-biography goes, it lacks anything that grabs the reader and makes them want to learn more...
... but at least it's 100% accurate!

Back to an actual topical discussion, let's try repeating that question you cower from once again...


Would you care to backup your claim of "the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct"?


Or is this another one of those forest for the trees moment where Moore is "right" in something minor and inconsequential (like he spelled his name right) but his overall analysis wouldn't hold water ...
I just love the cutesy little labels Jimmy makes up, "internet educated social justice warrior.' Funny shit.
Thanks from foundit66
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:24 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
As the first line of your auto-biography goes, it lacks anything that grabs the reader and makes them want to learn more...
... but at least it's 100% accurate!

Back to an actual topical discussion, let's try repeating that question you cower from once again...


Would you care to backup your claim of "the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct"?


Or is this another one of those forest for the trees moment where Moore is "right" in something minor and inconsequential (like he spelled his name right) but his overall analysis wouldn't hold water ...
Thanks for making my case by running like a coward from pointing out what I took out of context and your putting my post into your phantom context, and for demonstrating once more that you are out of your league.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:37 AM   #47
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,934
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Thanks for making my case by running like a coward from pointing out what I took out of context and your putting my post into your phantom context, and for demonstrating once more that you are out of your league.
"running like a coward"?
JB? I'm still here.
You reply with some of the most absurdly inaccurate junk I've seen. Makes me wonder if you could even believe what you spew.


I find it amusing that you would rather fixate on schoolyard banter rather than any actual topical value.
But let me try this question a THIRD time.
If anybody is cowering from something, it's you from this simple question:
Would you care to backup your claim of "the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct"?

Come on JB.
You MADE that claim.
Can you back it up? Or is it more accurate to recognize that you throw a LOT of b.s. out there and when challenged you obfuscate and demur obsessively?
foundit66 is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:40 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
"running like a coward"?
JB? I'm still here.
You reply with some of the most absurdly inaccurate junk I've seen. Makes me wonder if you could even believe what you spew.


I find it amusing that you would rather fixate on schoolyard banter rather than any actual topical value.
But let me try this question a THIRD time.
If anybody is cowering from something, it's you from this simple question:
Would you care to backup your claim of "the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct"?

Come on JB.
You MADE that claim.
Can you back it up? Or is it more accurate to recognize that you throw a LOT of b.s. out there and when challenged you obfuscate and demur obsessively?
Here are a few examples covering a century before twentieth century judicial activism started destroying the Constitution.

Show everyone that you are not a coward and point out why these are out of context and provide the context. You will not because you cannot.

Madison tried to slip this language into the Bill of Rights:
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
This was summarily rejected by the Congress.

Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 - Supreme Court 1888
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 09:24 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Thanks for making my case by running like a coward from pointing out what I took out of context and your putting my post into your phantom context, and for demonstrating once more that you are out of your league.
LOL...still a legend in your own mind I see.
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 09:27 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 21,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Here are a few examples covering a century before twentieth century judicial activism started destroying the Constitution.

Show everyone that you are not a coward and point out why these are out of context and provide the context. You will not because you cannot.

Madison tried to slip this language into the Bill of Rights:
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
This was summarily rejected by the Congress.

Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 - Supreme Court 1888
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553.
Do you understand what the word majority means? Sorry old boy, but the rest of us have to live in the present century and it's realities.
Thanks from RNG
Hollywood is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
alabama, blocking, chief, issues, justice, licenses, marriage, order, samesex



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama intangible child Current Events 11 February 16th, 2015 05:23 PM
Mississippi KKK Chapter Backs Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore In Anti-Gay Marriage Fi LongWinded Current Events 38 February 14th, 2015 06:22 PM
Alabama's Anti Sharia Law Bill Shoots Down Judges Anti Marriage Equality Order skews13 Current Events 0 February 12th, 2015 12:14 PM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict The White House The White House 0 May 14th, 2014 07:20 AM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation The White House The White House 0 March 6th, 2014 05:22 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.