Alabama Chief Justice Issues Order Blocking Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
So given your extensive knowledge, why do you think you are wrong?
You know you are wrong, same sex marriage is legal in 50 states.
So what do you have wrong?
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument required an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. That is out of your league.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2008
19,227
13,234
Virginia Beach, VA
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument required an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. That is out of your league.
And yet 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices (and dozens of judges from lower courts) disagree with you. The arguments have been made in the courts and your side lost the argument. You want a written argument as to why you are wrong....pick any of the dozens of court rulings against you.

What you need to do to show that you are correct is carry your happy ass into a courtroom and make your argument to a judge and get them to agree with you....and then carry that up to the Supreme Court and get them to agree with you.

But this is not going to happen. Because you are nothing but an anonymous internet troll who has delusions of chess playing pigeon hood.
 
Feb 2016
1,714
647
Deer Park, Washington
And yet 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices (and dozens of judges from lower courts) disagree with you. The arguments have been made in the courts and your side lost the argument. You want a written argument as to why you are wrong....pick any of the dozens of court rulings against you.

What you need to do to show that you are correct is carry your happy ass into a courtroom and make your argument to a judge and get them to agree with you....and then carry that up to the Supreme Court and get them to agree with you.

But this is not going to happen. Because you are nothing but an anonymous internet troll who has delusions of chess playing pigeon hood.
It'll happen when we get rid of activist judges and replace them with constitutionalists.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
And yet 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices (and dozens of judges from lower courts) disagree with you. The arguments have been made in the courts and your side lost the argument. You want a written argument as to why you are wrong....pick any of the dozens of court rulings against you.

What you need to do to show that you are correct is carry your happy ass into a courtroom and make your argument to a judge and get them to agree with you....and then carry that up to the Supreme Court and get them to agree with you.

But this is not going to happen. Because you are nothing but an anonymous internet troll who has delusions of chess playing pigeon hood.
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That subject deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument requires an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. Your post demonstrates that this is out of your league.

I would suggest that you start a thread on how many Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and petition the moderators to protect your delicate news headline of a thread by not allowing comments, especially comments that you are unable to respond to under the Snowflake Doctrine.
 
Jul 2008
19,227
13,234
Virginia Beach, VA
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That subject deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument requires an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. Your post demonstrates that this is out of your league.

I would suggest that you start a thread on how many Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and petition the moderators to protect your delicate news headline of a thread by not allowing comments, especially comments that you are unable to respond to under the Snowflake Doctrine.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
It is not rocket science to compare my posts to yours and determine who the idiot is. But on a side note, anytime you want to write out an argument explaining in detail why I am wrong on substance and the merits, feel free to do so.
 
Jul 2014
15,920
10,141
massachusetts
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument required an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. That is out of your league.
What I'm saying is that since you know you are wrong on this, have you figured out what you got wrong yet?
Or are you just going to insist that you are right and reality is wrong....
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,181
Barsoom
What I'm saying is that since you know you are wrong on this, have you figured out what you got wrong yet?
Or are you just going to insist that you are right and reality is wrong....
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument required an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. That is out of your league.
 
Jul 2014
15,920
10,141
massachusetts
That is a different subject than the one being discussed. That deserves its own thread. That thread would only require an Internet connection and vomiting up the results of the Supreme Court ruling. It would basically be mimicking news headlines. Anyone with an IQ of 68 can do that. That is your league.

This particular argument required an argument on the merits, constitutional basis, knowledge of history, an understanding of the Constitution, and the ability to analyze and manifest the flaws in the same-sex ruling and argue why it has no constitutional basis, thus making it an activist ruling. You need to write out an argument why I am incorrect on a constitutional, historical, and Fourteenth Amendment intent basis. That is out of your league.
So you're just going to insult the people who point out reality to you.
What does your therapist say about that?