Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Jon Miller]

But most peoples thinking about gay marriage has changed...

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

u

But most peoples thinking about gay marriage has changed...

JM

Which is irrelevant unless you take the whole "actual text is irrelevant" approach.

[snoopy369]

The constitution has not changed since he signed it.

Perjury is a matter of what the subject believed at the time, as you well know. That is why it is primarily only enforced in situations where the subject clearly knew facts contrary to the statement (Barry Bonds must have known he was injected with various substances, for example; he wasn't injected while asleep.)

[snoopy369]

Snoopys attitude is dumb and how we get abortions (ha ha ha) like roe and right to privacy.

I disagree with my attitude's dumbness, but happily agree with the last part of that statement - it is indeed how we get things like the right to privacy or Roe v Wade. Absent the Court, the majority opinion can dominate unfairly.

[Nikolai]

*popcorn*
this can be a good thread.

[snoopy369]

*popcorn*
this can be a good thread.

Not really, unfortunately. It will eventually end up being MtG and Ben arguing back and forth. I'll get tired of it pretty soon, as will most of the other serious debaters (of which I'm fairly sure we have a few).

[DinoDoc]

Not really, unfortunately. It will eventually end up being MtG and Ben arguing back and forth.

Worse. Ben and MrFun arguing back and forth.

[snoopy369]

OK, on the SCOTUS topic, anyone care to explain this 5/4 split?

Joining Scalia was Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.

Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Stephen Breyer.

This is on the drug dog case (which they came to the only reasonable conclusion, so I have no idea why it was 5-4). Scalia, Thomas, and the liberal women versus Roberts, Alito, and the liberal men? How does that come about?

[DinoDoc]

Absent the Court, the majority opinion can dominate unfairly.

Absent Roe the majority consensus was headed along the path the legalization. The only thing Roe accomplished was to poison the debate and irritate everyone.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, marriage has always been federal jurisdiction. At least so long as the common law has been in place in the US.

Stay away from fields where you have no understanding. Common law does not create subject matter jurisdiction. The common law applies at both federal and state levels.

[DinoDoc]

Well ****. I was wrong. I totally thought MrBoring would be the first person to pick a fight with Ben in this thread.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not really, unfortunately. It will eventually end up being MtG and Ben arguing back and forth. I'll get tired of it pretty soon, as will most of the other serious debaters (of which I'm fairly sure we have a few).

I really don't care about the ignoramus' predictable spoon fed point of view, especially as a Canuck who will try to interject all sorts of nonsense into US case law and legal history.

I'll give 10:1 odds that the Prop. 8 case will be decided on standing grounds consistent with Sierra Club.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not really, unfortunately. It will eventually end up being MtG and Ben arguing back and forth. I'll get tired of it pretty soon, as will most of the other serious debaters (of which I'm fairly sure we have a few).

What's there to argue? We're all in agreement here that gay marriage is sinful and that the federal government ought to squash it like an overripe cantaloupe.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stay away from fields where you have no understanding. Common law does not create subject matter jurisdiction. The common law applies at both federal and state levels.

And in this matter - Reynolds provides precedent for determination of marriage as federal jurisdiction.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well ****. I was wrong. I totally thought MrBoring would be the first person to pick a fight with Ben in this thread.

It's not picking a fight. It's more of a one-time trip behind the woodshed for educational purposes. If he wants to go into some deluded rant about common law creating subject matter jurisdiction (even if he's ignorant of the correct terminology), I'll let him howl at the moon to his little heart's content.