Way to go California Supreme Court

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2615559
Yeah,
I believe but I am a very unreligious person. I go back to that passage about a spec in another's eye and a board in mine. I have no room to be calling anyone on might might be considered sinful behavior.
Let the man with no sin cast the first stone...
I dunno, personally, it is silly, I state my statement then back it up. Only to be called names, or arrogant. then get accused of insulting other people. Don't get me wrong there are some legit arguments for the ruling the question is where is the line. I can understand both sides of the argument, and I know my personal backrounds does scew me a certain way as far as this goes. But you don't have to insult and name call someone when they hold an opposing viewpoint. (now if you are an actual candidate we can make fun of you) But not individuals here.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2615448
That was as much of your post as I bothered to read. Last time I was in a Church was a Christmas service I was obligated to attend when the wife and I did Christmas back in her home town the year we got married. Yep, I am a right wing religious nutjob

Are you not able to make you case based on the merrits without blaming everything on the "religious right", "Religious Zealots" etc.?
I push the religion because it's the religious zealots, fanatics, bible thumpers, whatever you want to call them, that are the most vocal and against this decision. Pretty much everyone here that's posted against the ruling states that it goes against their faith and moral judgements. You may be the exception, but also the minority (how ironic). What other merits are there? Can you make a case on your disagreement because you think it'll "open the floodgates" for other groups to follow? Where's your proof this will occur? Don't see where anyone is arguing my other post where I compare the homosexual to that of the plight of the Negro in the 50's and 60's. Same scenario, just a different era. Right now it's homosexuals. Who knows what class of citizen will evolve in 5 or 10 years from now. But if it's anything against what YOU consider the norm, I'm sure you'll be against it. It's called Freedom Of Expression. It's what defines this country and what we've fought for all these years. Take that away, and what's next?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615029
Sounds like it's you who needs the civic lesson. I don't write the news articles. The reporters at the LA Times do. All you need to do is read. It is a well known fact that the Supreme Court is very 'conservative heavy' right now due to the Republican appointees over the last several years. As the article from the LA Times stated, if McCain is elected, he may have the opportunity to add yet another conservative to the mix. This could be the 'swing vote' needed to overturn a variety of liberal decisions (i.e your homosexual marriage concern).
If the Justices of the Supreme Court choose to put any agenda on their docket, they can. They choose which cases they want to hear, not Congress, not the President, not The People. That right was given to them by the Constitution. They are 'The Gods' of the legal system. You seem fixated on these judges that overturned this vote of yours. Well guess what. YOU voted them into that position, not me. If you don't like the decisions thy're making, vote them out. Unfortunately, you can't do that with Supreme Court Justices. They're in the position for life, whether you like their opinions or not. So if they ever do decide to rule on Roe v. Wade again, it's quite possible it will be overturned.
We don't need a "swing" vote. As I pointed out, Conservatives had a majority on the Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidency. If it was simply a matter of overturning it they would already have done so....
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615670
I push the religion because it's the religious zealots, fanatics, bible thumpers, whatever you want to call them, that are the most vocal and against this decision. Pretty much everyone here that's posted against the ruling states that it goes against their faith and moral judgements. You may be the exception, but also the minority (how ironic). What other merits are there? Can you make a case on your disagreement because you think it'll "open the floodgates" for other groups to follow? Where's your proof this will occur? Don't see where anyone is arguing my other post where I compare the homosexual to that of the plight of the Negro in the 50's and 60's. Same scenario, just a different era. Right now it's homosexuals. Who knows what class of citizen will evolve in 5 or 10 years from now. But if it's anything against what YOU consider the norm, I'm sure you'll be against it. It's called Freedom Of Expression. It's what defines this country and what we've fought for all these years. Take that away, and what's next?
I have yet to argue it violates my faith; nor have many others here...
You are comparing sexual preference with ethnicity. Surely you can see the difference?
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615670
I push the religion because it's the religious zealots, fanatics, bible thumpers, whatever you want to call them, that are the most vocal and against this decision. Pretty much everyone here that's posted against the ruling states that it goes against their faith and moral judgements. You may be the exception, but also the minority (how ironic). What other merits are there? Can you make a case on your disagreement because you think it'll "open the floodgates" for other groups to follow? Where's your proof this will occur? Don't see where anyone is arguing my other post where I compare the homosexual to that of the plight of the Negro in the 50's and 60's. Same scenario, just a different era. Right now it's homosexuals. Who knows what class of citizen will evolve in 5 or 10 years from now. But if it's anything against what YOU consider the norm, I'm sure you'll be against it. It's called Freedom Of Expression. It's what defines this country and what we've fought for all these years. Take that away, and what's next?
That's what I addressed a few posts up?
Nobody whose posted has said they want to inhibit gay's in a fashion, except to get married. Comparing that to the plight of the Blacks in the 50's and 60's who went to difference school, had to sit in the back of the bus, use disgusting restrooms, etc. The physical they had to endure, in no way compares to some technical limitations. If gay's couldn't be seen holding hands in the street, that would a better comparison.
What about it this way, what would you say the percentage is on Americans who'd opposed me marrying my sister (if I had one), something like 99% right? Well apparently 60% of people think the same way for gays. I could have sworn, 'what's good for the majority' was one of the basic principles of diplomacy.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615670
I push the religion because it's the religious zealots, fanatics, bible thumpers, whatever you want to call them, that are the most vocal and against this decision. Pretty much everyone here that's posted against the ruling states that it goes against their faith and moral judgements. You may be the exception, but also the minority (how ironic). What other merits are there? Can you make a case on your disagreement because you think it'll "open the floodgates" for other groups to follow? Where's your proof this will occur? Don't see where anyone is arguing my other post where I compare the homosexual to that of the plight of the Negro in the 50's and 60's. Same scenario, just a different era. Right now it's homosexuals. Who knows what class of citizen will evolve in 5 or 10 years from now. But if it's anything against what YOU consider the norm, I'm sure you'll be against it. It's called Freedom Of Expression. It's what defines this country and what we've fought for all these years. Take that away, and what's next?

If you change the definition of marriage to suite one class it would be unconstitutional not to do it for other groups.
It isn't what I consider the norm, nature did that. I guess we should redefine what 5'8" is so short people can join the marines
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2615883
From your keyboard to God's computer. Hallileujah & Amen!
It would be nice, but I seriously doubt it will happen. McCain is just pandering to the right so he won't have a major revolt from the base of the republican party.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2615799
We don't need a "swing" vote. As I pointed out, Conservatives had a majority on the Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidency. If it was simply a matter of overturning it they would already have done so....
The court is really split 4-4 and 1. There are varying degrees of conservative/liberal on their respective sides and Kennedy is a bit of a wild card. When O'connor was on the court (probably my ideal model for a justice) as the swing vote Kennedy was never a solid conservative vote. With Oconner gone he is likely to try to step in to the role as the swing vote now.
 
angler man

angler man

Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615670
I push the religion because it's the religious zealots, fanatics, bible thumpers, whatever you want to call them, that are the most vocal and against this decision. Pretty much everyone here that's posted against the ruling states that it goes against their faith and moral judgements. You may be the exception, but also the minority (how ironic). What other merits are there? Can you make a case on your disagreement because you think it'll "open the floodgates" for other groups to follow? Where's your proof this will occur? Don't see where anyone is arguing my other post where I compare the homosexual to that of the plight of the Negro in the 50's and 60's. Same scenario, just a different era. Right now it's homosexuals. Who knows what class of citizen will evolve in 5 or 10 years from now. But if it's anything against what YOU consider the norm, I'm sure you'll be against it. It's called Freedom Of Expression. It's what defines this country and what we've fought for all these years. Take that away, and what's next?
Are you trying to say that over 60% of LIBERAL California is a bunch of religious zealots and Bible thumpers?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2616305
The court is really split 4-4 and 1. There are varying degrees of conservative/liberal on their respective sides and Kennedy is a bit of a wild card. When O'connor was on the court (probably my ideal model for a justice) as the swing vote Kennedy was never a solid conservative vote. With Oconner gone he is likely to try to step in to the role as the swing vote now.
I can agree with that assessment. Kennedy does tend to go off the reservation enough to consider him a swing vote.
Still, I think my point remains, if it was simply a matter of getting 5 Conservative votes on the SC to overturn RvW that would have happened by now.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2615159
oh oh also!!
home owner vs non homeowner!! those darn homeowners get tax breaks!!!
I'll trade ya. Our tax bill, on our place of residence alone, (we own several properties in 2 states) is in the neighborhood of $500 per month. I think we deserve a tax break or two.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2616785
I can agree with that assessment. Kennedy does tend to go off the reservation enough to consider him a swing vote.
Still, I think my point remains, if it was simply a matter of getting 5 Conservative votes on the SC to overturn RvW that would have happened by now.
What I have always heard is Kennedy would vote to overturn Roe if he thought he would be in the majority. With Oconnor there that was never going to happen.
One thing is an absolute. If the justices "wanted" to overturn Roe there would be a case there right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top