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 8th, 2016, 08:49 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
It works perfectly fine every time it's used.

It's called reality. Your refusal to accept reality is a sign of mental illness on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I didn't post it as an argument. I posted it to show that you have a disconnect with reality. If you think the court erred in their decision then carry your anonymous internet hack ass into court and convince them. Until then you're just a chess playing pigeon crapping all over the board and strutting around like you've won. (Spoiler Alert: your side lost)

If you are going to copy and paste something as an argument, you have three choices: defend it on the constitutional merit, demonstrate why I am wrong on constitutional merits, or use another one of you patented excuses to run. We all know it will be to run. So here you go again:

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 09:35 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 23,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Yes. Filthy language supports your logic, I guess.
LOL don't see you refuting WHAT I said, only whining about the language I used while saying it.
Why would that be I wonder?...
Thanks from LongWinded
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 09:44 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 23,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court its authority, and "the Supreme Court" is never mentioned in the Constitution.
I suppose you think you're being cute. You know as well as I do that Article III, Section 1 of the Constituion states that, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court......."

Now I realize the wording is not exactly the same as "the Supreme Court" but only an fool would think that significant. But go ahead, explain the significance.
How could they have said THE Supreme Court as NO such court existed or could exist until such time as the Constituion was ratified and legal?
Thanks from LongWinded
Hollywood is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 02:38 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
If you are going to copy and paste something as an argument, you have three choices: defend it on the constitutional merit, demonstrate why I am wrong on constitutional merits, or use another one of you patented excuses to run. We all know it will be to run. So here you go again:

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model
When someone cuts and pastes a Supreme Court decision, it contains the courts thinking on the matter. It contains the arguments. If you want enlightenment, read it.
Thanks from RNG and LongWinded
goober is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 02:46 PM   #85
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
When someone cuts and pastes a Supreme Court decision, it contains the courts thinking on the matter. It contains the arguments. If you want enlightenment, read it.
Let's see how many ways goober can run.

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 03:14 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And once again Jimmy believes he has fooled people into thinking he actually knows something

Not really Jimmy boy
It's cute to watch, though, how he presents his inane comments and then sits back as though there people just as ignorant as he is on this board.

He never gives up, though. Most men with a speck of self-esteem would quit commenting on issues they knew nothing about but not our JB...he keeps exposing his uneducated mind time and time again.
LongWinded is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 03:14 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
When someone cuts and pastes a Supreme Court decision, it contains the courts thinking on the matter. It contains the arguments. If you want enlightenment, read it.
I don't think JB knows what enlightenment is.
LongWinded is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 04:14 PM   #88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Let's see how many ways goober can run.

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
If you're smart Jimmy, Why are you always wrong?
goober is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 04:17 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Run, goober, run.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 04:25 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 23,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Let's see how many ways goober can run.

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
Is there some specific reason why he should, or needs to?
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.