Gay marriage NY arguments put US lawy...

Gay marriage NY arguments put US lawyer on defense

There are 110 comments on the WDBO-AM Orlando story from Sep 27, 2012, titled Gay marriage NY arguments put US lawyer on defense. In it, WDBO-AM Orlando reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WDBO-AM Orlando.

3OHY

San Jose, CA

#22 Sep 28, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag. Your *unparalleled* insistence to *continually* accentuating *every**other* word you post *shows* the *inflated* sense of self *inherent* in your *insisted* personalization of your *defensiveness.*

Just deal with the ridiculousness and anti-American nature of your assumptions about American Law. You insist the only way to deal with application of laws is your way, or the highway... including the preposterous proposal of a Politburo being set up keeping courts in line and defending your particular emotionalism.

This extremely deficient perception of how America works makes your repeated defense of tyranny nothing more than spam by a child.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#23 Sep 28, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag. Your *unparalleled* insistence to *continually* accentuating *every**other* word you post *shows* the *inflated* sense of self *inherent* in your *insisted* personalization of your *defensiveness.*
Just deal with the ridiculousness and anti-American nature of your assumptions about American Law. You insist the only way to deal with application of laws is your way, or the highway... including the preposterous proposal of a Politburo being set up keeping courts in line and defending your particular emotionalism.
This extremely deficient perception of how America works makes your repeated defense of tyranny nothing more than spam by a child.
wow.
couldn't have said it better...
Kudos.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25 Sep 28, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.)
<quoted text>
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.
I'm saying it is just as likely the "overseers" would be as easily corrupted as the judges are.

At some point you have to trust the system to work. Adding another layer of bureaucracy likely won't help and could make it worse.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 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.
Actually it was a UNANIMOUS 7-0 decision in Iowa.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 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.


In the end the COURTS still decide, NOT the Executive branch.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 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?
EVERY recent President, INCLUDING Shrub (ACLU v Mineta), Clinton (Dickerson v US), Bush (Metro Broadcasting v FCC), & Reagan (INS v Chadha) have decided not to defend some laws which they felt were unconstitutional.

Would you demand the DOJ defend a law passed by Congress returning blacks to slavery?
Crickets

Minneapolis, MN

#29 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.
The good voters of the Hawkeye State also fired all those judges at the earliest opportunity in the next election.
Realist

Minneapolis, MN

#30 Sep 28, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERY recent President, INCLUDING Shrub (ACLU v Mineta), Clinton (Dickerson v US), Bush (Metro Broadcasting v FCC), & Reagan (INS v Chadha) have decided not to defend some laws which they felt were unconstitutional.
Would you demand the DOJ defend a law passed by Congress returning blacks to slavery?
Why not allow the return of slavery?
Slavery also included more than just black people.

No one is forcing you to buy a slave if you can't afford one or don't qualify for a government subsidy.
If other people want to buy and sell slaves, it has no effect on you personally if.

A society and culture that can rationalize legally the counterfeit of homosexual "marriage" will inevitably fall into slavery.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#31 Sep 28, 2012
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>Why not allow the return of slavery?
Slavery also included more than just black people.
No one is forcing you to buy a slave if you can't afford one or don't qualify for a government subsidy.
If other people want to buy and sell slaves, it has no effect on you personally if.
A society and culture that can rationalize legally the counterfeit of homosexual "marriage" will inevitably fall into slavery.
Oh look, yet another anti-gay who also supports slavery.

What a shocker.

They sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Keep up the good work chicken little.
Aggie

Minneapolis, MN

#32 Sep 28, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, yet another anti-gay who also supports slavery.
What a shocker.
They sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Keep up the good work chicken little.
Who says I'm "anti-gay"?
Is it really just everyone who's "anti-gay" is really just a homosexual, right?

I don't see the problem with buying and selling people as slaves if we're going to overturn or erase the definition of marriage.
Just as people who don't want to marry a homosexual shouldn't concern themselves with marriage laws, neither should people who don't want to buy or sell slaves concern themselves with human-trafficking/slavery.

It's just so much moralistic hogwash.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#33 Sep 28, 2012
Aggie wrote:
<quoted text>Who says I'm "anti-gay"?
......
I don't see the problem with buying and selling people as slaves if we're going to overturn or erase the definition of marriage.
.......
Do you even READ what you post?

Geesh.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#34 Sep 28, 2012
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>Why not allow the return of slavery?
Slavery also included more than just black people.
No one is forcing you to buy a slave if you can't afford one or don't qualify for a government subsidy.
If other people want to buy and sell slaves, it has no effect on you personally if.
A society and culture that can rationalize legally the counterfeit of homosexual "marriage" will inevitably fall into slavery.
The twist of irrationality behind that one is amazing. Brave. Now, why not change your name and post a response to yourself ...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#35 Sep 28, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
Such internally contradictory sophistry is rather audacious.
Not really.

If a law is created bases only on animus, and has no state interest whatsoever, then the law should not have been enacted.

Fortunately, we have the Courts to sort out such things.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#36 Sep 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
No, I'm saying good luck with that, O Pollyanna.
Jane Dough wrote:
so while you flail
You've responded to me specifically *at least three times*; by definition, by *your* logic, you are flailing.

How's that working out for you? Do you always take a hammer to your own cranium, O Smart One?
Jane Dough wrote:
and announce you cut me off at the pass,
Good luck changing my opinion of this; you only *intensify* my opinion that I've made a point you either ignored willfully, OR ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH to see.
Jane Dough wrote:
you are merely saying the same thing as me...
And this wasn't my point, so ... which is it?

Tell me. Because *I* know what I said; *I'm* the one who said it; *I* am the owner of those words. You don't get to appropriate them and "announce" to me what *I* meant.

Tell me: Which? is? it?
Jane Dough wrote:
I tend to find conservatives who are able to see, but RARELY a liberal...
Not for lack of trying, huh? Not for lack of trying *while I watch you misstate what I said*, right? Since it's *right there* and *I'm* the one who said it, right?

Do you always play the victim when you can't force others to believe as you do?

Christ.

Get a goddamn backbone, please.
Jane Dough wrote:
that was the basis for that comment, not that YOU were a liberal, but that you are acting LIKE liberals do in this CONTEXT...
That's fine (genuinely); that's not a problem and I was certainly not indicting you. What I am saying, however, is the *BASIS* for all of humanity and you don't like hearing it, I suspect.

Know what's even funnier, though?
Jane Dough wrote:
so, no, you didn't cut it off at the pass,
You start out by making a claim which, if mine were *FALSE*, would establish you (arguably) as an "ambassador" who *WANTED* to discuss those points with people,
Jane Dough wrote:
you confirmed what i said to be true..
then you get what I said wrong, try to appropriate it,
Jane Dough wrote:
just in a very antagonistic way!
and generally argue in a way that is *SURE AS DAY* to turn others against you.

Congratulations on "hoping to better humanity" and tripping over your own feet the *nanosecond* you were out of the gate.

But hey,*spin this* and tell me that's *NOT* what you did, since I'm sitting here *KNOWING* what I said and what I meant to say and *WATCHING* you misstate it.

Thanks.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#37 Sep 29, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag.
Interesting: I caught you red-handed, lying about what I said because I can *prove* you misappropriated the context, can *prove* it based on what's on the board, and like an actual moron -- for this is how morons behave -- you *CANNOT* bring yourself to admit *what's right on the board*; instead, you say this.

Do you know how self-referential this is? I *SLAM* you for lying about what I said *BECAUSE ANYONE CAN LOOK IT UP*, and you come back with this, O Spineless One.

Yeah, tell me another one about things I can *prove directly* in two seconds because *your quote* misappropriated what I said, and it's on the board, and you did it *deliberately*.
3OHY wrote:
Your *unparalleled* insistence to *continually* accentuating *every**other* word you post *shows* the *inflated* sense of self *inherent* in your *insisted* personalization of your *defensiveness.*
Really? Slamming you for opening your big mouth and inserting your foot is "defensive"? Wait a sec, who's *REALLY* defensive here?

Who's *REALLY* defensive when you're talking about my posting *style*, which you know for a goddamn fact you're not going to change a whit?

I caught you *lying* about what I said, and you're not the defensive one? I've got a bridge to sell you, champ.
3OHY wrote:
Just deal with the ridiculousness and anti-American nature of your assumptions about American Law.
I don't fall for this type of rapist bullshit, where the other person calls names that attempt to slander who I am in an attempt to *FORCE* me to behave like a scumbag; that's your department.

Don't like that I *proved* you're lying about what I said?

Get a backbone and stop crying and flinging accusations that only make you look like I was *right from the beginning*, O Spineless One.
3OHY wrote:
You insist the only way to deal with application of laws is your way, or the highway...
Like every judge in the nation?

Like every attorney in the nation?

Like *YOU*?

Like you, trying to *FORCE* me to adopt your viewpoint? Wait a sec, you're *NOT* anti-American for attempting to force your horse shit down my throat? Hmmmm?

Hmmmm?

Oh, excuse me for behaving like *JUDGES* and *ATTORNEYS* do, crybaby.
3OHY wrote:
including the preposterous proposal of a Politburo being set up keeping courts in line and defending your particular emotionalism.
Well, this is blatant vomit; one internet "trick" involves attempting to get others to "back down" by claiming their notions ridiculous or untenable. Sucks to be you, and hard, because I stand by what I said -- merely pointing out that you *misappropriated* what I said,*lying* about it: You imply -- very, very tellingly, indeed -- that the notion would protect *only my viewpoints*, when the entire thread (and you know this, we both know you know it) shows that I spoke from a more detached, objective viewpoint about such overseers of the judges, a concept I think is a GREAT idea.

Does it suck to be you and be unable to convince me to "back down" from my claim? Does it hurt?

If you don't like it, go find someone else to bully, because I'm not standing for your rotting vomit.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#38 Sep 29, 2012
3OHY wrote:
This extremely deficient perception of how America works
Naah; one need only look to the *existence of the law in America* to show that you just made a very anti-American statement, indeed.

In fact,*the American way* is to oversee the populace with the POLICE, and JUDGES, and COURTS, all of which OVERSEE people generally and KEEP ORDER,... did you think before you typed?

Are you that stupid to call the *American system as it stands* a "deficient" one?

Do you just hate that I will not back down and that I am showing you up, point by point, to be *glaringly stupid* and shortsighted, as well as unthinking?

Having fun yet?
3OHY wrote:
makes your repeated defense of tyranny nothing more than spam by a child.
Yet what you just implied makes you sound like a whore for satan, so ... let's not get ahead of ourselves. I mean, there's YOU, actually thinking you made points, all of which I just refuted, and yet you'll *probably* open your big snout again and come back for more. Do *you* enjoy getting knocked off your pedestal onto your ass? You tell me.

You tell me.

In fact, you remind me of someone with *no moral code to speak of* when you claim I "defended tyranny" by calling for *MORE* order,*MORE* oversight and *MORE* protection. You just claimed that someone who wants an orderly system, and protection for all individuals, wants "tyranny."

Tell me how that makes you sound like anything but a ditch pig.

Seriously.

Seriously.

You're the one who said it, after all, O Abusive One.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#39 Sep 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
wow.
couldn't have said it better...
Kudos.
Yet weirdly, for some *outlandishly bizarre* reason, I'm not buying this because there's a post on the board wherein I ripped to shreds *this* post,

sentence by sentence.

This looks to me like the very "emotionalism" the other poster spoke of: Needing backup, you ran to "agree" with someone because *you* feel like *you* are at a loss.

Not my problem, but forgive me for being suspicious of your opportunism here.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#40 Sep 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying it is just as likely the "overseers" would be as easily corrupted as the judges are.
At some point you have to trust the system to work. Adding another layer of bureaucracy likely won't help and could make it worse.
I'll confess, hahaha: YES, YOU HAVE A POINT.

What you are saying is, HUMANITY is corruptible, and you are 100% correct.

I honestly believe that *additional oversight* can cut down on this; that, I believe, is where we are differing.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#41 Sep 29, 2012
Crickets wrote:
<quoted text>The good voters of the Hawkeye State also fired all those judges at the earliest opportunity in the next election.
Great, so you tell me if you believe you and your ilk accomplished something. Ready?

This "firing of the judges" is looked upon by the pro-gay as despicable, childish, vengeful, spineless, corrupted, anti-American and the work of scumbags.

NOW, do *YOU* feel that *YOU* and *YOUR ILK* have a right to be proud of being:

despicable, childish, vengeful, spineless, corrupted, anti-American scumbags?

IF SO, then you're on the right track.

IF NOT, then stop crying like snot-nosed pigs and lie in the bed you made, because that is how *tens of millions* now see the antigay, and it ain't gonna change by any means; we know this as: "Sucks to be you." Congrats on that.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#42 Sep 29, 2012
Come on, though, "crickets"; know what? Argue that you *DO* have a right to be proud of what happened in Iowa, based on what *I* just said. Know why that's great?

Because then, when the antigay call gay people names and call them sinful, WHO CARES? They're being sinful *JUST* like the antigay. When the antigay call gay people immoral, WHO CARES? So are the antigay.

See how you *cannot and will absolutely never, never, never, but never win this*? You can't. You cannot. Nothing you say or do will budge reality based on *YOUR* actions, the actions of the antigay. Don't like it?

CHANGE THE WAY THE ANTIGAY DEAL WITH THIS, and then I'm sure the pro-gay will talk. Until then, the pro-gay will probably ignore the blathering of the antigay *in much the same way that you ignore the verdict in Iowa*, so you'd know exactly what that's like, too; thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US appeals court upholds UN immunity from Haiti... Aug '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News US court rules for Chevron in Ecuador rainfores... Aug '16 Captain Yesterday 3
News Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 8 is not a good number Jun '16 WeTheSheeple 44
News Assault weapon bans should stand (Mar '16) May '16 okimar 883
News Supreme Court rejects challenge to Google's onl... Apr '16 Jeff Brightone 1
News Staff slipups on patient privacy can get doctor... Apr '16 Sheri Ann 1
News Agent Orange hearing (Jun '07) Apr '16 retiredmp 98
More from around the web