Gay marriage NY arguments put US lawyer on defense

Sep 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WDBO-AM Orlando

A federal appeals court panel forced a Justice Department lawyer into an awkward position Thursday, making him explain the government's decision to abandon defending the Defense of Marriage Act as judges decide the fate of a law destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of110
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Meanwhile, we'll find out Monday if the SCOTUS accepted this case. Seems assbackwards.

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

This topic PROVES that the United States, for all its chest beating about freedom and liberty to pursue happiness, is a fraud.

Meanwhile, meek and mild Canada just gets on with it. Vimy Ridge just keeps repeating itself…
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 28, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yeah, this article was interesting but the judge's demands of the justice department are illogical, I must admit. He demanded answers to questions as if a *single department of individuals* changed their views between the mid-1990s and now, which is nonsensical. His own logic could have people demanding of him why *HIS* court ruled one way in 1850 and another in 1950.

Clement is a scumbag extraordinaire, but that's another matter. His despicable reasoning, laughable by this point (LOUDLY laughable), that the government IS SAVING MONEY, is tantamount to saying that the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT can just *con whomever it likes, rape of their rights whomever it likes*, literally *STEAL FROM*(!!!) whomever it likes. I can't imagine Clement meant to say that, but -- startling, profoundly disturbing loser that he actually is -- that's how it came off, to be blunt.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 28, 2012
 
The judge is an idiot. Times change, people change, ideas change. If they didn't, we would still have slavery, and women couldn't vote. It's not as if DOMA is the only unconstitutional law ever passed and defended, then abandoned. Of course, the lawyer could not have been so blunt with a judge. Judges, even the stupid ones, wield a lot of power.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 28, 2012
 
RalphB wrote:
The judge is an idiot. Times change, people change, ideas change. If they didn't, we would still have slavery, and women couldn't vote. It's not as if DOMA is the only unconstitutional law ever passed and defended, then abandoned. Of course, the lawyer could not have been so blunt with a judge. Judges, even the stupid ones, wield a lot of power.
That's what's wrong with the system. There should be overseers of the judges,*who would have no other authority*(this is key) but could review the conduct of judges and keep them in line. I am not even proposing a sweeping change, but there *are* abuses in the system and the system *clearly, ridiculously* lacks safeguard in that respect.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 28, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what's wrong with the system. There should be overseers of the judges,*who would have no other authority*(this is key) but could review the conduct of judges and keep them in line. I am not even proposing a sweeping change, but there *are* abuses in the system and the system *clearly, ridiculously* lacks safeguard in that respect.
But then who would oversee the overseers?

No system is perfect.

Congress has the authority to impeach federal judges, but it rarely happens because any impeachment would likely be seen as a political move.
Junior Esquire

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 28, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what's wrong with the system. There should be overseers of the judges,*who would have no other authority*(this is key) but could review the conduct of judges and keep them in line. I am not even proposing a sweeping change, but there *are* abuses in the system and the system *clearly, ridiculously* lacks safeguard in that respect.
I have to agree with you on this one, reference the three judges in Iowa who forced gay marriage upon the good people of Iowa.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 28, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But then who would oversee the overseers?
No no, no: Reread what I wrote: "There should be overseers of the judges,*who would have no other authority*(this is key) but could review the conduct of judges and keep them in line."

I wrote that *SPECIFICALLY* in case anyone said, "So who oversees the overseers?" It wouldn't be needed; think about it: The overseers *have no other authority*; they *have no other function*; this is their *sole* function. They literally have *zero function* except for this; they don't have control of anything else. MUCH of the system stays in the hands of the judges, who are simply being "kept in line" by these people.

Or, in the alternative, think of it this way: By the logic of "who would oversee the overseers?" why have any authority at all? Why have school principals?, if they are overseeing students without merit or consequence?

I think of "Who would see the overseers?" as a red herring of sorts; it's a common argument that seems to *eschew authority generally*.(I'm not saying this is how YOU meant it.)
WeTheSheeple wrote:
No system is perfect.
Congress has the authority to impeach federal judges, but it rarely happens because any impeachment would likely be seen as a political move.
Right, the current system = faulty, thus my response.

Those people would be put in place *directly* to deal *solely* with this -- and have zero other authority in any context, meaning they'd be unlikely to have an agenda because it would be largely useless.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 28, 2012
 
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with you on this one, reference the three judges in Iowa who forced gay marriage upon the good people of Iowa.
They forced zero (and what chills me is that you *KNOW* this), and what I proposed wouldn't do anything about this. It would be a system meant to deal with *procedural misconduct*.

In other words, no *CLEAR-AS-DAY LAW* exists that shows the verdict the judges in Iowa reached to be a violation of that law; there are instances, however, under the law, where judges' verdicts are outlandish, or court proceedings where their behavior is outlandish or prejudicial.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 28, 2012
 
How I would *adore* seeing you go into a court of law and say this to a judge's face.

Lemme guess: You have no backbone at all, and you'd stand like a quailing c-r-y-b-a-b-y in front of a judge.

Lemme guess: We both know I'm right.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 28, 2012
 
so, no one is going to discuss the obvious problem with the EXECUTIVE branch deciding if a law is CONSTITUTIONAL?

I understand its in an area where you would support the call but can you even fathom a situation where you didnt and think long term?

sorry, i know you can't.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 28, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
so, no one is going to discuss the obvious problem with the EXECUTIVE branch deciding if a law is CONSTITUTIONAL?
I understand its in an area where you would support the call but can you even fathom a situation where you didnt and think long term?
sorry, i know you can't.
Great; interesting: You *just this second* claim that the executive branch cannot make its own call on this matter, a judgment upon the *rectitude* of a law, and then *YOU* unilaterally decide what you accuse the executive branch of deciding -- that you can speak for others in a context which has to do with the law.

Marvelous.

You can pronounce everyone here unthinking, but the executive branch of the government can't? They, too, are calling the nation unthinking for support of laws that should never have been enacted.

In fact, the second and actual *problem* with what you propose here is that everyone is simply going to tell you that of COURSE they would support JUSTICE, because to them, what the executive branch is doing is just. You don't cause people to rethink their moral codes when you pose a question like this; they presume any idiot would know what's *fair* or not. They will simply rehash what they know; you'll claim they're being shortsighted, and they'll automatically label you a troll for not seeing how *clearly* fairness can be defined.

In other words, if they "didn't support the call," they would simply see the executive branch as being *UNJUST* and could very, very likely *DIAGRAM* for you how that call was unjust while theirs was just.

You knew all this, right?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 28, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Great; interesting: You *just this second* claim that the executive branch cannot make its own call on this matter, a judgment upon the *rectitude* of a law, and then *YOU* unilaterally decide what you accuse the executive branch of deciding -- that you can speak for others in a context which has to do with the law.
Marvelous.
You can pronounce everyone here unthinking, but the executive branch of the government can't? They, too, are calling the nation unthinking for support of laws that should never have been enacted.
In fact, the second and actual *problem* with what you propose here is that everyone is simply going to tell you that of COURSE they would support JUSTICE, because to them, what the executive branch is doing is just. You don't cause people to rethink their moral codes when you pose a question like this; they presume any idiot would know what's *fair* or not. They will simply rehash what they know; you'll claim they're being shortsighted, and they'll automatically label you a troll for not seeing how *clearly* fairness can be defined.
In other words, if they "didn't support the call," they would simply see the executive branch as being *UNJUST* and could very, very likely *DIAGRAM* for you how that call was unjust while theirs was just.
You knew all this, right?
I am merely speaking of the separation of powers, and how the EXECUTIVE does not rule on the constitutionality...
I'll put it so you can understand, would you have wanted Bush deciding what was constitutional?
why do liberals never consider the precedent set?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 28, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely speaking of the separation of powers, and how the EXECUTIVE does not rule on the constitutionality...
I'll put it so you can understand, would you have wanted Bush deciding what was constitutional?
why do liberals never consider the precedent set?
Naah, I was pretty clear about *where your logic is flawed*, but you don't like hearing that, so you resort to this -- which I *covered in my argument*, explaining precisely how someone would likely respond to you.

If you don't like that, you're free to go complain about it elsewhere. I'm not interested in your prejudices and your snot-nosed responses, thanks.
3OHY

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 28, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely speaking of the separation of powers, and how the EXECUTIVE does not rule on the constitutionality...
I'll put it so you can understand, would you have wanted Bush deciding what was constitutional?
why do liberals never consider the precedent set?
The Executive Branch has always held the Constitutional power to influence the Judicial Branch in various ways, even appealing decisions it doesn't like and appointing new judges to hear the case(s). Such Executive actions can become political issues, but extreme issues are settled by Court decisions leading to review by the Supreme Court. That court prefers to judge the Constitutionality of a particular law and whether Congress had the authority to make the law, not whether Executive authority was breached by defending, or not defending a particular law. Such direct confrontations between the Branches of Government are avoided because the results of such confrontations would be unending impeachment proceedings, etc.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 28, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Naah, I was pretty clear about *where your logic is flawed*,
no. you were not.
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>

I'm not interested in your prejudices and your snot-nosed responses, thanks.
so my comments about separation of powers you take as "prejudices"?
maybe your argument was a little pre-programmed?

and what part was "snot-nosed"?

My point is merely that we should object to a PRESIDENT deeming something constitutional or not, regardless of the topic.

So you kinda jumped the gun on the all opposition is bigotry thingy...since my comments were in general and not specific against gay marriage...only on the EXECUTIVE speaking on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law, I mean, why not just fire the SCOTUS....

don't like it, then don't respond to me...
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 28, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no. you were not.
I *absolutely* was; are you intending to lie purposefully? I *diagrammed* in a lengthy paragraph the *typical* reaction to a question like yours, or an attitude like yours.

Why must internet exchanges become so *goddamn childish* because someone simply *CANNOT* admit that they were wrong, did not think of something, or neglected to take it into consideration? This is *right above us* in the thread, in English, and there's YOU, denying it, right here.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so my comments about separation of powers you take as "prejudices"?
?!?!?! You presumed you were speaking to a "liberal" from the look of your *post in English directly above*, and have zero basis for that except your own petty concerns.
Jane Dough wrote:
maybe your argument was a little pre-programmed?
You're not getting my point. You're so far inside your own head that I am *WATCHING* you not get it. Reread what I *ORIGINALLY* wrote to you. I *CLEARLY* explained how the typical person would react to *YOUR* prejudicial comments because I saw through them immediately.
Jane Dough wrote:
and what part was "snot-nosed"?
Your comment that I "didn't understand" or your presumptions toward my political affiliations, that's what part.

I understood *EXACTLY* what you were doing and I am suspecting mightily that you don't like *that I headed it off at the pass* by explaining *EXACTLY* where your logic was flawed. It's still right up there on the board; it's still in English. Go read it.
Jane Dough wrote:
My point is merely that we should object to a PRESIDENT deeming something constitutional or not, regardless of the topic.
But you used the argument that the typical person wouldn't like it "if they didn't agree with the president." I responded, and I am responding YET AGAIN, that the typical person *would deem one instance just and fair and the other unjust and unfair*. What part do YOU not understand? People will compartmentalize as they wish; your "look at the shoe on the other foot!" argument won't CHANGE anyone. Do you grasp this?
Jane Dough wrote:
So you kinda jumped the gun on the all opposition is bigotry thingy...
No. I explained. How someone. Was likely. To react. You are not getting it.
Jane Dough wrote:
since my comments were in general and not specific against gay marriage...
So. were. mine.

Mine *specifically* were because I was generalizing and *extrapolating* from what you said.
Jane Dough wrote:
only on the EXECUTIVE speaking on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law, I mean, why not just fire the SCOTUS....
THIS convinces me you are way far inside your own head. You *aren't* seeing what I clearly meant.

You're welcome to reread it. It hasn't changed.
Jane Dough wrote:
don't like it, then don't respond to me...
Don't try to control others on the board; it will get you nowhere.

I stand by what I said,*DOUBLY* now. You are talking in a specific context. I am telling you that *no one* will buy it because *people don't consider things from two angles*; they consider themselves RIGHT and others WRONG. Do you get this simple explanation?
3OHY

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 28, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
...
...laws that should never have been enacted.
...
Such internally contradictory sophistry is rather audacious.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 28, 2012
 
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
Such internally contradictory sophistry is rather audacious.
You are quite misrepresentative for misquoting me, aren't you? Thank you for admitting that you are engaging in "sophistry," and quite "audaciously" -- since my comment is DIRECTLY ABOVE for anyone to see.

Wow, look what you omitted: "They, too, are calling the nation unthinking for support of laws that should never have been enacted."

Not only are you speaking of *your opinion* when you call this "sophistry," you (interestingly) have no way of knowing whether my sentence claims *THEY* feel the laws should never have been enacted, since I'm talking about *OBAMA AND CO.*

Do you always misquote others like such an asshole? Do you always *assume*?

Did you expect me to ask what the hell *you* meant rather than tear you a new asshole to complement the one you showed the forum? I know what I meant; I had no trouble responding here. Next time, learn to keep your big mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about, thanks. If you want to look like you have a *scrap* of morality rather than CLEARLY LYING about what others said, that is. My comment is right there and we both know *you had no way of knowing* my intention; you presumed because you're DISHONEST.

Think before you type next time.

Thanks for reading.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 28, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am responding YET AGAIN, that the typical person *would deem one instance just and fair and the other unjust and unfair*. What part do YOU not understand? People will compartmentalize as they wish; your "look at the shoe on the other foot!" argument won't CHANGE anyone. Do you grasp this?
I am telling you that *no one* will buy it because *people don't consider things from two angles*; they consider themselves RIGHT and others WRONG. Do you get this simple explanation?
in the end, you are merely saying what I said...
that we need to look at it from a wide perspective and NOT through the lense of right or wrong IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE...but in a general application of the PRINCIPLE...

so while you flail and announce you cut me off at the pass, you are merely saying the same thing as me...
I tend to find conservatives who are able to see, but RARELY a liberal...
that was the basis for that comment, not that YOU were a liberal, but that you are acting LIKE liberals do in this CONTEXT...

so, no, you didn't cut it off at the pass, you confirmed what i said to be true..just in a very antagonistic way!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of110
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••