|
Post by badman on Sept 28, 2016 18:29:37 GMT -7
I'm in North Carolina, so maybe I shouldn't get in any discussion about your state.
The little that I know is here..http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/28/alabama-chief-justice-moore-faces-ethics-panel-on-gay-marriage-order-could-be-removed.html
How do you folks in Alabama feel about Moore? Do you all believe in states rights? Should a Supreme Court decision rescind or create a state law?
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Sept 29, 2016 6:03:16 GMT -7
Mr Moore has been a lightning rod of controversy for over a decade. His followers and detractors are equally ardent.
|
|
|
Post by bmccullough on Sept 29, 2016 8:51:14 GMT -7
I'm in North Carolina, so maybe I shouldn't get in any discussion about your state. The little that I know is here..http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/28/alabama-chief-justice-moore-faces-ethics-panel-on-gay-marriage-order-could-be-removed.html How do you folks in Alabama feel about Moore? Do you all believe in states rights? Should a Supreme Court decision rescind or create a state law? Here's Al.com's take on it. I, too, reside outside of Alabama (though my roots remain). My personal take on it is that Judge Moore didn't learn from his last mistake(s) while holding the Chief Justice spot and has allowed history to repeat itself, though in slightly different context. He likely will lose his position as Chief Justice once again, but he's making a strong case for running for Governor, so... there's that lining (silver or otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by JMHO on Sept 29, 2016 9:31:44 GMT -7
I agree with hoofie that both sides are extremely ardent. I agree with bmccullough that Moore may be making a play for governor... again. I disagree Moore didn't learn from his last mistake as I believe this stunt, like the last, was deliberate and razor focused.
From the first time he stepped over the line of his judicial duties, I thought (and said aloud) this is a man who is using Christianity for his own purposes and that the generated publicity was his primary objective to be used for furthering his political goals... which he did in both 2006 and 2010 when he ran unsuccessfully for governor.
Apparently, the refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom, while garnering some national coverage and homegrown loyalty, wasn't at a sufficient level to vote him into the Governor's seat. Now he's returned (that travesty deserves its own thread) with an agenda he obviously believes will endear him into even more judgmental hearts in Alabama.
Roy Moore's using Christianity to propel himself into the political limelight is offensive. Calling him Judge after being unanimously removed by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary in 2003 is offensive. Calling him Governor would make Alabama a mockery once more.
Is it evident to which side I ardently represent?
|
|
|
Post by badman on Sept 30, 2016 19:45:00 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 1, 2016 15:31:42 GMT -7
The Supreme Court's authority comes directly from the U.S. Constitution. "The judicial power shall extend to ALL CASES, in law and equity, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made, under their authority" The ruling that denial of marriage rights is unconstitutional is no different from the 1954 ruling that segregation of schools is unconstitutional. Individual states or local governments passed laws refusing admission to certain people in certain schools based on race, and those laws would have been upheld by an overwhelming majority in the South if put to a vote. None of that matters - when the Supreme Court ruled that those laws are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, then those laws were nullified. It would have been absurd to argue that the 1954 ruling "redefined school". We don't say that women's suffrage "redefined vote", or that striking down racial miscegenation laws "redefined marriage". It is just as absurd now to say that the 2015 ruling "redefined marriage". Marriage is still exactly the same thing it was before the ruling, it has just been made accessible to couples to whom it was prohibited before. State marriage laws were not struck down in totality - only the prohibition against marriage by same sex couples was struck down. So, after that ruling, it is the Law of the Land that states can no longer apply a gender test in the issuance of marriage licenses or the consequences of marriage.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Oct 6, 2016 19:19:48 GMT -7
"ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, the laws of the United States" seems to be the area where we disagree.
Are you comfortable living with the possibility that a group of 9 or 8? folks who where not elected by the citizens can rule any new Law of the Land without consequence?
|
|
|
Post by bmccullough on Oct 7, 2016 10:40:33 GMT -7
"ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, the laws of the United States" seems to be the area where we disagree. Are you comfortable living with the possibility that a group of 9 or 8? folks who where not elected by the citizens can rule any new Law of the Land without consequence? That's where the President and Congress come in. They choose the "group of 9 or 8" to vet the individual states' laws (if it is challenged in court), as well as Congressional laws, to determine if the proposed laws are Constitutional or not. So long as those 9 or 8 individuals maintain their judicial code of ethics in ruling, I am comfortable with their legal opinions and rulings. They found that the Marriage Act laws in Alabama and other states were unconstitutional, because they discriminated against a certain class of citizens. Fmr. Justice Moore has justly been reminded (again) that we live in a country that is secular by design. No one religion or religious belief is held over another.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Oct 7, 2016 17:38:38 GMT -7
One could reasonably argue that a couple of the justices did not maintain their judicial code of ethics, however there still is no consequence.
The 10th amendment is pretty straightforward and easy to interpret. The 14th (which was illegally adopted) is not.
Defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman does not deprive life, liberty (the ability to move around), or property. Equal protection doesn't appear to be deprived either.
Who are the next class of citizens that will feel discriminated? Old fat white men who can't walk around the grocery store naked? If SCOTUS agrees, who suffers the consequences?
Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 8, 2016 11:51:03 GMT -7
This is where our legal system goes awry. SCOTUS should interpret the constitution and not attempt to redefine it. The only problem I have with same sex marriage is calling it "marriage". I have no problem with same sex couples having a legal partnership with all of the same benefits and traps as traditional marriages.
That said, there is nothing in the constitution about defining marriage and there was no federal income tax until the early 1900s, so the issue should, in my opinion, belong to the states. The rulings of SCOTUS should not rewrite the laws.
|
|
|
Post by bmccullough on Oct 28, 2016 6:58:04 GMT -7
Defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman does not deprive life, liberty (the ability to move around), or property. Equal protection doesn't appear to be deprived either. Who are the next class of citizens that will feel discriminated? Old fat white men who can't walk around the grocery store naked? If SCOTUS agrees, who suffers the consequences? Thanks for the replies. Limiting the parameters of marriage solely between a man and a woman denies the rest of the general public couplings who do not meet those strict standards - specifically the "gays". The right of marriage affords couples better access to joint endeavors that same-sex couples were not privy to - spousal insurance, right-to-life healthcare decisions, leasing/property ownership rights, among others. (Note - this list is off the top of my head, not nearly as in depth as it should be due to the "TLDR" amongst the forum readership.) The idea of graciously granting a "similar-to-but-not-quite-the-standard-of" alternative to same-sex couples is the equivalent of ordering a steak, but getting chicken instead. It's still meat, but not the same/equal. This is all about equality. Any one person or group are no better than another in the eyes of the laws of this country (unless you are a celebrity/politician/close relative to politician). Without having my crystal ball handy, my guess is the next class of citizens that will fight their discrimination will be women in their continued fight for personal rights to healthcare by demolishing the Catholic/Christian Initiatives that prevent/restrict the full range of access to healthcare for women, along with the equal pay discriminatory practices held by most, but not all, employers. As far as I know, public indecency laws still stand in most states and municipalities in this country. Old, fat, white men will still have to cover up when they are in public - though, unlike women, they are still free to let their man-boobs sway in the breeze to the disgust of all within eye sight. Women, on the other hand, can't even breast feed their child using a blanket or some other form of breast/chest/child covering without someone calling "foul."
|
|
|
Post by badman on Oct 28, 2016 18:28:36 GMT -7
It seems that you are replying to both hoofie and me.
You're chicken/steak comparison is a little weak, IMO.
I don't agree that aborting babies equal the full range of healthcare for women.
Those state laws are one judgment away from one progressive liberal lower court judge crammed into office by Harry Reid's nuclear option.
Hope you have a good weekend!
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 30, 2016 11:16:56 GMT -7
It seems that you are replying to both hoofie and me. You're chicken/steak comparison is a little weak, IMO. I don't agree that aborting babies equal the full range of healthcare for women. Those state laws are one judgment away from one progressive liberal lower court judge crammed into office by Harry Reid's nuclear option. Hope you have a good weekend! Over the 40 years before Obama made his first Supreme Court appointment, the Court composition averaged 6.9 Republican appointees and 2.1 Democratic appointees. The current SC judges were appointed in the days when both parties said there was no "litmus test" for nomination to the Court. Those days are obviously gone, and Trump has already said he would chose nominees specifically for their committment to vote a certain way on a whole range of issues, including a woman's right to autonomy over her own body, and access to marriage by gay couples. During that 40 years of 7-2 Republican majority, the Court chose not to reconsider Roe v Wade because it regarded a standard of abortions allowed early in the pregnancy and prohibited late in the pregnancy as a good and reasonable compromise. Liberals do not advocate taking away a state's right to regulate abortion late in a pregnancy. A reasonable conservative should not advocate taking away a woman's right to choose early in a pregnancy. But today's dictatorial conservatives demand to have everything exactly according to their preferences, and will not tolerate even the slightest accommodation of any other viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by bmccullough on Oct 31, 2016 8:54:10 GMT -7
It seems that you are replying to both hoofie and me. You're chicken/steak comparison is a little weak, IMO. I don't agree that aborting babies equal the full range of healthcare for women. Those state laws are one judgment away from one progressive liberal lower court judge crammed into office by Harry Reid's nuclear option. Hope you have a good weekend! I thought my chicken/steak comparison was apropos, but to each his/her own opinion, I reckon. Wanna know how many abortions are performed in response health-related concerns? Less than 1% - but we have numerous laws attempting to limit that number even further. Why is that? A thinly veiled attempt at control, maybe? I had a wonderful weekend. I hope you did, as well. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 7:43:45 GMT -7
This is what I cannot figure out?
If the man is so unliked and his theory on government business is un-liked by so many . Why did people vote him back in office?
His thoughts may be wrong or right? Or both?
You have too say the man stands FIRM on what he believes. Doesn't he.
He is not one day saying one thing and then doing another like many people are used too government officals doing?
The rest is yet too be seen? IT'S the unknown that most fear.
|
|