Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

This was probably the first time in history a judge put 7 million people on trial.

One man checks millions....

this has been asked of you before, but i do not recall if you answered it.

city of berkley citizens vote to place very onererous restrictions on handgun ownership, restrictions that have not been litigated before but arguably conflict with SCOTUS' opinions.

USDC cannot strike down the regulations as unconstitutional?

 

[Luk]

This thread delivers the bigotry and hate of one person. Where are all the other conservatives chiming in on this?

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 228
User Name Posts
vetteman 35
overthebow 22
Wok 14
mercury14 13
SgtSpiderMan 11
RobDownSouth 10
RoryN 10
SeanH 10
richard_daily 8
Powertone 8
HB1965 8
Luke_Atmydik 7
The Mutt 7
mark197205 7
pointless 6
IrezumiKiss 6
Byron In Exile 6
SaintPeter 5
CrackerjackHrt 5
Wrong Element 5
Dixon Carter Lee 4
Slowlane 2
Douchemoron 2
Sean Renaud 2
Ovidius 2
statsultan 1
eyer 1
Liar 1
browneyedbeauty003 1
GrumpyOldGoat 1
doctor_insanus 1
Ulaven_Demorte 1
MrsBrownEyes 1
Killswitch 1
Peregrinator 1
coastal-boy 1
zipman 1
swordandsandle 1
Show Thread & Close Window

We are almost there, folks.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

I don't recall ever being asked a question about the city of Berkeley's gun control ordinances, but I will say that it most likely violates state law and should be struck down by state courts. Isn't that what happened when Diane Feinstein tried the same thing when she was mayor of San Francisco ans was shut down by two courts:

"On January 9, the California Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling that struck down San Francisco's handgun ban as a violation of California's state preemption law. The ruling was in response to an NRA-led challenge to the ban"

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3357

Hmmm.

So a single state judge but not a single federal judge can pass judgment on voters' whims?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Uh, PrivateSpiderman, you were saying...?

I was saying you don't answer questions or back up your claims. And I'm still waiting for you to do so.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

It was within the state, and it was the California Court of Appeals declaring the Mayors actions to be illegal. Which is not in itself unprecedented. In the case of Berkeley one would think their attorneys were versed in the applicable case law and know that such a ballot measure would violate state law on it's face.

it went directly to the court of appeals and not to a trial court? really? honest q; i have no idea how california procedure works.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You said the government has no laws against adultery and never will. I proved you wrong, what do you say?

You did? You showed me where in The Constitution adultery was illegal? And cited a case where it was enforced?

I must have missed it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[where]

This thread delivers the bigotry and hate of one person. Where are all the other conservatives chiming in on this?



We are almost there, folks.

in fairness, he's pretty conflicted about his sexuality, so you would expect him to react like this.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

In the case of the San Francisco handgun ban of 1982, it went to a lower court first. I understand what you are trying to imply but the analogy isn't straight as the ban was ruled illegal under the State's preemption law.

sure it is.

a single judge concludes the citizens' mandate is illegal, whether it violates a statute or a constitutional provision.

regardless, mob rule gets checked by a single judge applying a law.

should single judges be permitted to declare statutes or executive orders unconstitutional?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This is what you said:

"The government has no laws regarding adultery, and likely never will."

You didn't say a damn thing about the Constitution.

I showed you a current federal law that says different. You are wrong.

That's fine. Although hypocritical on your part.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked you hours ago.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When I ask you a question and get another unrelated question in return. Don't expect an answer.

What was the post number?

I asked 185 and Rory asked 179.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

To be clear, I do think homosexual behavior is disgusting, unhealthy, aberrant, abnormal behavior, and I don't wish to subscribe to it, promote it, or subsidize it in any way. I will oppose it in any lawful manner. Is that clear enough for you?

If that makes me a bigot in your mind, than make the most of it.

Have fun continuing to enable Literotica, a liberal website filled with homosexuality, with your presence every time you post here, you sad, obsolete fucking piece of hypocritical buzzard shit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[klippert]

I guess

The voting rights act is OUT THE DOOR.....We vote, the Court decides. We've now come to mob rule.... Can't convince the people. Gather a mob, and go to court.....sad day....

 

[Peregrinator]

So what harm does gay marriage present to society?
And how does crack not harm society?

Someone please have vetteman explain how smoking crack, incest, and polygamy are equal to gay marriage. I need a laugh.

I have Rory on nuke so I don't see his trolls.

See above.

The voting rights act is OUT THE DOOR.....We vote, the Court decides. We've now come to mob rule.... Can't convince the people. Gather a mob, and go to court.....sad day....

I can't figure out which side you're on. Are you saying the mob who is against gay marriage is right or wrong?

 

[cjh]

I don't think the Berkeley affair, which I admit I am unfamiliar with, is analogues with throwing out the votes of 7 million voters, after all it was an illegal undertaking to begin with. Now granted, this federal judge has ruled Prop 8. illegal and 7 million voters mentally unbalanced. I guess we'll have to see what happens on appeal. I am not hopeful.

I've never been a believer in Marbury v Madison. I don't believe a federal judge should be able to overrule an executive order or an act of Congress, but it is what it is. I think matters such as Prop 8, being a state issue should not be subject to concurrent jurisdiction. I think it should go directly to the SCOTUS. It's ridiculous enough to think that 9 unelected judges can over rule the will of millions of Americans.

the marbury horse is long out the gate. and with it out the gate, single judges get to determine whether a law is legal regardless of whether the law originates with an executive, a legislator, citizens, or even another court. concluding a law is illegal is not akin to concluding that its proponents are mentally imbalanced.

and the federal government had concurrent jurisdiction because the states specifically granted it that power in the 14th amendment.

i understand that there is a huge legal debate as to whether equal protection applies when the issue is sexual preference; i cannot even hazard a guess as to how this issue will ultimately be resolved because there are so many strong conflicting legal, policy, and factual arguments to be made. but that is what courts do--wade through murky conflicting arguments to reach a conclusion.

they only thing that i think is clear about this dispute is that justice kennedy suddenly--again--has become one of the most powerful men in america.

 

[unregistered]