Justice Anthony Kennedy may hold key vote in same-sex marriage decision

Mar 24, 2013 Full story: San Gabriel Valley Tribune 72

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday and Wednesday about same-sex marriage rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy will be scrutinized for his every word, sigh and twitch.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Mar 25, 2013
Actually I'm more interested in Justice Roberts; will he become the 6th vote to overturn DOMA?

Prop 8 is almost irrelevant at this point.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Mar 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Actually I'm more interested in Justice Roberts; will he become the 6th vote to overturn DOMA?
Prop 8 is almost irrelevant at this point.
Don't count your decisions until you read them (in about 3 months).
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3 Mar 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't count your decisions until you read them (in about 3 months).
why not. For sheeple, he is either right, or the court is a bunch of ignorant bigots!

He has no intention of accepting anything the court says is a fact unless he agrees with it......

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
why not. For sheeple, he is either right, or the court is a bunch of ignorant bigots!
He has no intention of accepting anything the court says is a fact unless he agrees with it......
Well, don't forget that not that long ago, the court was wrong in Bowers v. Hardwicke which criminalized sex between consenting adults in our own homes.

I don't have as much faith in SCOTUS as you seem to have.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Mar 25, 2013
(If you elect me King, I will rule with an Iron Sceptre. But ALWAYS, be Fair. And Balanced. :))
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#6 Mar 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, don't forget that not that long ago, the court was wrong in Bowers v. Hardwicke which criminalized sex between consenting adults in our own homes.
I don't have as much faith in SCOTUS as you seem to have.
no they weren't. they overturned it right when they should have...

if you expect the court to lead from the front, you don't get this court...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no they weren't. they overturned it right when they should have...
if you expect the court to lead from the front, you don't get this court...
It was 17 years before they admitted their mistake and overturned it !

So if they get these 2 cases wrong, we can look forward to the year 2030, if we're LUCKY, for them to overturn it, by which time many of us will be dead of old age.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#8 Mar 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
It was 17 years before they admitted their mistake and overturned it !
or it was 17 years before the court felt it wasn't ahead of the issue...

as in why we all agree the marriage cases are too soon to the scotus for you to have any chance...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no they weren't. they overturned it right when they should have...
if you expect the court to lead from the front, you don't get this court...
WAIT!

So you're saying the constitution allowed states to ban sodomy between same-sex couples in 1986, but that VERY SAME CONSTITUTION didn't allow it anymore in 2003?

Now how can that be?

Was there some change in the constitution between 1986 & 2003?

Nope, no change at all.

So you're okay with denying a constitutional right to people just because it's "not the right time" yet?

Wow, and you keep hammering me for saying the SCOTUS justices ruled based on their own biases and NOT just what the constitution says. Obviously you support the exact same thing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
or it was 17 years before the court felt it wasn't ahead of the issue...
as in why we all agree the marriage cases are too soon to the scotus for you to have any chance...
Again, admitting the SCOTUS does NOT rule strictly on the constitution, but rather on public opinion.

Thanks for FINALLY admitting that as clearly as anyone ever has.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#11 Mar 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
WAIT!
So you're saying the constitution allowed states to ban sodomy between same-sex couples in 1986, but that VERY SAME CONSTITUTION didn't allow it anymore in 2003?
Now how can that be?
simple, the Const. says what the scotus says it says...
a great reason for judicial restraint as scalia would suggest...
but you don't want to learn about the idea, you want to label it "bad" so you can ignore it...
yup, you are more like who you claim to hate than you think...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#12 Mar 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, admitting the SCOTUS does NOT rule strictly on the constitution, but rather on public opinion.
Thanks for FINALLY admitting that as clearly as anyone ever has.
I know why you insist on trying to put words in my mouth...
do YOU?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
simple, the Const. says what the scotus says it says...
a great reason for judicial restraint as scalia would suggest...
but you don't want to learn about the idea, you want to label it "bad" so you can ignore it...
yup, you are more like who you claim to hate than you think...
That's what I've been saying forever, and yet you claim I'm trying to "twist the system" by stating exactly what you've just stated.

Hypocrit, as usual.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I know why you insist on trying to put words in my mouth...
do YOU?
Because you're a lying sackofshit who will simply deny what they said in previous posts......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
simple, the Const. says what the scotus says it says...
a great reason for judicial restraint as scalia would suggest...
but you don't want to learn about the idea, you want to label it "bad" so you can ignore it...
yup, you are more like who you claim to hate than you think...
How is denying constitutional rights just because there are a lot of bigots in the country considered "judicial restraint"?

So you won't mind if we just replace a couple of justices and change whatever rulings we don't like.

After all, the constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says......
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#16 Mar 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I've been saying forever, and yet you claim I'm trying to "twist the system" by stating exactly what you've just stated.
Hypocrit, as usual.
I love how you fail to understand and shoot remarks at me for it...

given it says what they say it says, that's the main reason for judicial RESTRAINT...

you support court stacking and judicial activism which is indeed twisting the system...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#17 Mar 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you're a lying sackofshit who will simply deny what they said in previous posts......
this is funny to me as the epitome of your hate being due to your own failure to grasp these concepts...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#18 Mar 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How is denying constitutional rights just because there are a lot of bigots in the country considered "judicial restraint"?
wow. You are so deluded by your own agenda you cant ask a straight question anymore...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how you fail to understand and shoot remarks at me for it...
given it says what they say it says, that's the main reason for judicial RESTRAINT...
you support court stacking and judicial activism which is indeed twisting the system...
If you admit the SCOTUS determines what the constitution says, then labels such as "judicial restraint" & "judicial activism" are simply semantics.

Why is it "court stacking" only when the opposing side does it?

BOTH sides nominate justices whom they think will agree with their interpretation of the constitution.

Call it whatever you want; I'm at least honest enough to admit that BOTH sides do it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
wow. You are so deluded by your own agenda you cant ask a straight question anymore...
YOU are the one who claimed it was okay to deny constitutional rights because of public opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr punte 46,608
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr loose cannon 177,989
Bayonets, grenade launchers given to local law ... 2 hr Johnnie C 100
California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 3 hr subscibe 15,995
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Adds up 200,938
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 hr Cali Girl 2014 55,889
California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 7 hr lollypop 5,068
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••