House votes to create sexual deviant rights and violates constitutional limitations

Nov 2005
8,342
2,864
California
And there you have it, attack the messenger, truth, and documented facts, instead of engaging in a productive discussion concerning the role of the court and its usurpation of legislative authority.
I did discuss the role.
You REPEATEDLY IGNORED the vast majority of the arguments posed back to you. When I post several arguments and you reply to a portion of a sentence, it's time to recognize you aren't interested in a productive discussion regarding the topic.

Cause that is truly one of the worst parts of this.
You were repeatedly challenged to show how your arguments were topical and you refused.
Above, your statement isn't about "engaging in a productive topical discussion" ...
No. Your statement is about how I won't engage in discussing "the role of the court and its usurpation of legislative authority" which is not the topic.

Topically, you demanded others go back and point out what was wrong with your comments in post #1, and I did exactly that. But then you cut and paste around that and you have been ignoring the actual topic you started ever since...

It's also like having a thread on chess and in comes a person who can't get a forum discussion on the weather going, so instead that person tries to make the chess thread talk about the weather...
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
johnwk said:
And there you have it, attack the messenger, truth, and documented facts, instead of engaging in a productive discussion concerning the role of the court and its usurpation of legislative authority.

I did discuss the role.
You REPEATEDLY IGNORED the vast majority of the arguments posed back to you.
Stop with the bull-crap-ski!

No, you did not discuss the role of the Court and its invented tests used to avoid judging the constitutionality of a legislative Act, but instead, used these tests to second guess the wisdom of a legislative Act which is not the court's role.

In post number 96 I quoted the court as saying "...we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess. _________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003). Instead of discussing the principle about second guessing the wisdom of legislation by the court, you responded by saying I took the quote "out of context".

The closest you came to actually addressing my posts regarding the court second guessing legislation was in post number 101

In this post you quoted me as writing: "the Supreme Court is not vested with a power to second guess the wisdom of legislation. To do so is to exercise legislative power." You responded by writing “The clearest refutation of this b.s. claim is to recognize that SCOTUS continued to do exactly what you are trying to claim they stated they couldn't do.” Simply because a majority on the court continues to engage in a specific act which in effect usurps legislative power, does not give legitimacy to an act which amounts to judicial tyranny.


And in post number 115, you attack the principle stated by Justice Stone regarding the court’s function to “judge the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom”, because it was stated in the dissenting opinion and the case was about taxes, not that the principle of separation of powers stated by Justice Stone is valid.

I don’t know if it makes you feel comfortable to constantly insult me and post disparaging remarks and pretending you have addressed the issue when you have not, but the fact is, the Court’s job is not to decide whether or not a legislative Act advances a “legitimate state interests” which is a subjective question and one intentionally delegated to our legislatures, state and federal.

So, if you are up to it, how about addressing the following?


The irrefutable fact is, our courts have invented a number of tests to strike down constitutionally authorized legislative acts which conflict with the courts personal feelings of fairness, justice or reasonableness, which otherwise are indeed constitutional. And this second guessing of the wisdom of legislative acts by the court is usurping legislative authority, and is a blatant violation of our constitutional system and its separation of power doctrine.


Whether a legislative act has a legitimate state interests is solely within the powers delegated to the people’s elected legislature, and not our courts!


This specific subject matter ___ second guessing the wisdom of legislation as opposed to judging its allowance by the terms of a constitution, federal or state ___ was touched upon in U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936), where the Court properly pointed to the remedy for alleged "unwise laws" as being "the ballot and to the processes of democratic government".


"The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government." U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)



More recently, in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997). the Court again touched upon this subject as follows:


"While it may be very tempting for this court to order the Legislature to appropriate a reasonable amount of funds (or attempt to do so through court orders to Ecology) so that water rights applicants could have their requests for water decided in a timely manner, such action would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The separation of powers doctrine ensures that the fundamental functions of each branch of government remain inviolate. The legislative branch generally has control over appropriations. While we may find a waiting period of years to be intolerable, we would find it even more intolerable for the judicial branch of government to invade the power of the legislative branch. Just because we do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs."



Your desire to impose your personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law, or have our judicial branch of government do your dirty work for you and impose its personal predilections as the rule of law, is an affront to our very system of government which is one of defined and limited powers. Among those limited powers is our Constitution's amendment process, and is the proper way to achieve your goals. Why do you recoil from this remedy and embrace judicial tyranny?



JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



.
 
Nov 2005
8,342
2,864
California
Stop with the bull-crap-ski!
No, you did not discuss the role of the Court and its invented tests used to avoid judging the constitutionality of a legislative Act, but instead, used these tests to second guess the wisdom of a legislative Act which is not the court's role.
Johnwk, my comments to you were simply to let you know why I have stopped discussing with you as you are insistent on talking about what you want to talk about and say but you have absolutely no interest in discussing other people's actual responses. At best, you pick a convenient phrase or sentence here or there to reply to, with the obvious purpose being just to repeat yourself ad nausieum.
Your responses are more and more confirming my decision as correct...

I did point out the role of the court was to determine the constitutionality of laws. No response.
I did discuss the "invented tests" (as you phrase them) along with their purpose and where they came from. No real response.
You have devolved into propagandic phrasing in claiming the courts "use these tests to second guess the wisdom of a legislative Act". I could just as accurately toss that label on any court decision which conservatives like, and I suspect you would magically see the purpose of the constitutional review.

You try to ignore the issue of civil rights and instead try to use court decisions which center around governmental powers of taxation and similar such matters to pretend that the precedent you want to cite is relevant. And again, when I point this out you ignore it.

Regardless, your focus has no topicality. You have derailed your own discussion.
 
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
Johnwk, my comments to you were simply to let you know why I have stopped discussing with you as you are insistent on talking about what you want to talk about and say but you have absolutely no interest in discussing other people's actual responses. At best, you pick a convenient phrase or sentence here or there to reply to, with the obvious purpose being just to repeat yourself ad nausieum.
Your responses are more and more confirming my decision as correct...

I did point out the role of the court was to determine the constitutionality of laws. No response.
I did discuss the "invented tests" (as you phrase them) along with their purpose and where they came from. No real response.
You have devolved into propagandic phrasing in claiming the courts "use these tests to second guess the wisdom of a legislative Act". I could just as accurately toss that label on any court decision which conservatives like, and I suspect you would magically see the purpose of the constitutional review.

You try to ignore the issue of civil rights and instead try to use court decisions which center around governmental powers of taxation and similar such matters to pretend that the precedent you want to cite is relevant. And again, when I point this out you ignore it.

Regardless, your focus has no topicality. You have derailed your own discussion.

There you go again, foundit66, instead of having a dialog with respect to the Court’s function, which certainly is not to second guess the wisdom, necessity or reasonableness of legislation, but only to determine the power of a legislature to enact a specific law, you once again deflect, obfuscate and now even accuse me of posting propaganda, and even allege you discussed "invented tests" along with their purpose and where they came from. Of course, unlike my previous response to you, in which I provided the post numbers to substantiate my claims, you simply make an assertion without providing the evidence so I cannot respond to what you alleged you posted.

Now, once again, let me direct you to MY POST NUMBER 152 which deals with the function of the court and is certainly not to second guess the fairness, reasonableness or justice of legislation, but rather, to deal “with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom” as tersely stated by Justice Stone in his dissenting opinion in U.S. v. BUTLER (1936) . Do you not agree with this distinction which is fundamental to the separation of powers doctrine in our system of government?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
Feb 2019
1,417
317
here and there
There are meaningful distinctions.
Just because you don't have the faculties to comprehend them doesn't mean they don't exist nor does it mean they aren't significant.



No.
In fact, legal precedent clearly states that "yucky" is not a legitimate state interest.



Why?
Why should they have the same rights as a married couple?

Do you call them "married" in your personal life, regardless of their actual "marriage" claim?
Cause if you don't, it shows your position hypocritical.
It amazes me how often people who are obviously opposed to gay marriage are willing to turn around and piss all over any idea of "sanctity of marriage" by insisting that marriage be treated as trivial.
You have yet shown a compelling reason to not allow polygamists to marry.

You are a bigot.

Why should I give a damn why you or morally bankrupt politicians think why grown adults should not marry?
 
Likes: Sabcat
May 2018
5,330
3,411
Chicago
You have yet shown a compelling reason to not allow polygamists to marry.

You are a bigot.

Why should I give a damn why you or morally bankrupt politicians think why grown adults should not marry?
Clearly there might have been a reason in the past. Probably religiously based. If polygamists want to be married, fine. Let them make their case like we had to. I personally have no objections. Perhaps you do?

However, I fail to see the comparison. Marriage at this point in between two people, correct? Your only objection seems to be if the two people involved are of the same sex, correct?

So make your case as to why that is a problem. Tell us why two people of the same sex should not be able to get married. Clearly, you have a viewpoint on this issue, yes? So tell us what it is.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2005
8,342
2,864
California
You have yet shown a compelling reason to not allow polygamists to marry.
There are a variety of things at play here...
First off, the discrimination against gays is based on gender, which has intermediate scrutiny level.
Polygamy laws are based on the number of people who can enter into the contract.

Regarding the reasons, there are a variety of problems with polygamy. You can google "lost boys polygamy" for one example.

Even at its heart, the comparison between polygamy and monogamy demonstrates how "marriage" laws are not adequate. Suppose a man has a wife. The man marries a second wife which has a lot of money. The first wife wants a divorce, but can there then be a lawsuit against the second for spousal support?


Why should I give a damn why you or morally bankrupt politicians think why grown adults should not marry?
For that matter, why should anybody give a damn what you think about the topic?
 
Jul 2015
2,510
1,103
USA
First off, the discrimination against gays is based on gender, which has intermediate scrutiny level.
I see you have brought up an invention of the Supreme Court, the "intermediate scrutiny" test, which is not used to determine whether or not a law passed by a legislature is within the four walls of a constitution, state or federal, but is instead used by the court to judge the appropriateness of a law, which I might add is a subjective question and one solely, and exclusively, delegated to the people's elected representatives.

One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring the black male which is nothing more than a subjective opinion. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started, with impunity, to ignore the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and went on to impose its own ideas of social justice and court-ordered social reforms using these “tests”. Some of the important cases which demonstrate the Court’s assumption of legislative power by using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both very active in these cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its progressive members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to the intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, to this very day, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

Your desire to impose your personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law, or have our judicial branch of government do your dirty work for you and impose its personal predilections as the rule of law using these "tests", is an affront to our very system of government and the separation of powers doctrine, and are used to allow the court to second guess the wisdom and appropriateness of legislation, which certainly is not the courts function. Why do you support this type of judicial tyranny?


JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
Feb 2019
1,417
317
here and there
There are a variety of things at play here...
First off, the discrimination against gays is based on gender, which has intermediate scrutiny level.
Polygamy laws are based on the number of people who can enter into the contract.

Regarding the reasons, there are a variety of problems with polygamy. You can google "lost boys polygamy" for one example.

Even at its heart, the comparison between polygamy and monogamy demonstrates how "marriage" laws are not adequate. Suppose a man has a wife. The man marries a second wife which has a lot of money. The first wife wants a divorce, but can there then be a lawsuit against the second for spousal support?



For that matter, why should anybody give a damn what you think about the topic?
My opinion is just as good as yours or the black robes that decide such matters. And trust me, I don't give a damn about their opinions on sex either dolt.

There are problems with polygamy? There are problems with gay sex as well.

Did you know that the gay population accounts for under 10% of the population but also accounts for well over 60% of all AIDS cases in the US every year?

You can sit back and pick apart any group, such as straight couples that have over a 50% chance of divorcing. Do you know what divorce does to children? You may as well throw them in a wood chipper.

The bottom line is, these same people are free to have relationships with each other whether the state acknowledges them or not, and problems will occur no matter who engages in these relationships. Why then are polygamists singled out as the only group that is "bad".

Again, you either let all adults make such decisions for themselves or you should get out of the marriage business altogether, which is what I think the state should do.

A secular state should not be giving the thumbs up or down on sex. That is insane.
 
Likes: Sabcat

Similar Discussions