OK OK calm down please. We both know Jane (who is actually a man) has issues.<quoted text>
You're welcome. You guys, it doesn't *matter* what the court says about Baker. Are you NUTS? Not to be extreme or vicious toward YOU, but I want to make my point. Come on, already; get a grip. PLESSY V. FERGUSON was controlling *SUPREME COURT* precedent for decades; look at the decision. Look at what the court found. Go look. Go look for yourself what the *SUPREME COURT* declared and decreed to be:
and equitable under law.
And someone like "Jane Dough" is going to tell *me* that the supreme court is calling Baker precedent; I don't know exactly what her argument is, my point being that I don't care what *anyone* is saying about Baker. It's a scumbag decision, again:
Baker is a scumbag decision.
Am I clear enough?
NINE STATES now have gay marriage. If the *best* anyone can say is that times have changed, then I am certainly entitled to call anyone who calls Baker precedent:
End of story.
Again, thank you and: you're welcome.
I just like getting him to make a fool of himself. But then again, he really doesn't need any help in that area.
He has a hard on for Baker for some reason. It took me nearly two months before he FINALLY agreed that Baker only applies to MN and is is NOT a "federal precedent" unless one considers cases SCOTUS rejected becaus3 they contained no Constitutional question "federal precedents".
Baker can not be enforced outside MN because it's a STATE Law and a STATE RULING.
But I know you already know this.
Jane just wants to muddy the waters, cloud the issues and hope no one notices his BS.
And no I have no idea why he posts under a woman's name. But then again, he says he's a lawyer so lying must come naturally to him.