Judge critical of states defending ga...

Judge critical of states defending gay marriage bans

There are 57 comments on the Capitol Hill Blue story from Aug 27, 2014, titled Judge critical of states defending gay marriage bans. In it, Capitol Hill Blue reports that:

Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Capitol Hill Blue.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“TODAY SCOTUS RULED MARRIAGE”

Since: Aug 08

IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL

#1 Aug 27, 2014
I wouldn't be surprised that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules 3-0 that the marriage bans in both Wisconsin and Indiana are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Here is the Wisconsin oral arguments that one can listen to:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2 Aug 27, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules 3-0 that the marriage bans in both Wisconsin and Indiana are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Here is the Wisconsin oral arguments that one can listen to:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/...
Wow. Exciting.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Aug 27, 2014
The only real question is whether the 7th circuit will get their decision out before the 6th circuit ruling.

If it's a 3-0 ruling as most analysts predict, it could take as little as 4 weeks to issue the opinion.

I don't expect the 6th circuit to issue their ruling before October at the earliest.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Aug 27, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
So what is the NEXT court action on this long road to Equality ?
Florida.

Their Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of their case directly, bypassing the appeals court. That should speed things up a bit and get us Florida possibly by the end of the year.
Mick

United States

#10 Aug 27, 2014
I don't give a rat's tail what some politician-activist-judge says, homosexual "marriage" is a perversion. No coward in a black robe is going to change certain facts. Name the parents who hope their son will marry a man or their daughter will marry a woman, and have to harvest children from some sperm bank or donor in order to give them "grandchildren." That fact is NEVER going to change, no matter how much rhetoric comes from the gay lobby. Judges cannot override certain truths, no matter how fancy or long their "decisions" are.

“TODAY SCOTUS RULED MARRIAGE”

Since: Aug 08

IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL

#12 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
All sodomite and sodomite validating judges should be identified and remembered for any upcoming elections, then thrown out of office. Other State processes should eliminate gay friendly judges from the bench. Congress should impeach and convict any Federal judges validating this diseased and damaging behavior. Reestablishing homosexuality as the vice and criminal depravity it is would make "marriage" for these freaks a moot issue.
So, EVERY Judge who DOESN'T rule in your favor is a "GAY" friendly Judge, right?

You do know that Federal Judges are appointed, not elected, right?

Homosexuality should NEVER have been considered ANYTHING but a normal part of the Human Sexuality variant.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
All sodomite and sodomite validating judges should be identified and remembered for any upcoming elections, then thrown out of office. Other State processes should eliminate gay friendly judges from the bench. Congress should impeach and convict any Federal judges validating this diseased and damaging behavior. Reestablishing homosexuality as the vice and criminal depravity it is would make "marriage" for these freaks a moot issue.
How many unconstitutional demands are allowed in one single post? Federal judges are not elected, so we can't throw them out of office at the next election. The appointment of judges is in the Constitution. States have no say over the federal courts, so there no constitutional provision for them to eliminate them. Judges cannot be removed as long as they exhibit "good behavior." Issuing rulings with which a moron like yourself takes offense would not violate the norms of good behavior.

So it looks like you'll be stuck ranting and fuming. Too bad for you.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
All sodomite and sodomite validating judges should be identified and remembered for any upcoming elections, then thrown out of office. Other State processes should eliminate gay friendly judges from the bench. Congress should impeach and convict any Federal judges validating this diseased and damaging behavior. Reestablishing homosexuality as the vice and criminal depravity it is would make "marriage" for these freaks a moot issue.
Why do you oppose children having married parents?

Why do you support the law In Indiana that would put ministers in jail for practicing their faith?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#16 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
All sodomite and sodomite validating judges should be identified and remembered for any upcoming elections, then thrown out of office. Other State processes should eliminate gay friendly judges from the bench. Congress should impeach and convict any Federal judges validating this diseased and damaging behavior. Reestablishing homosexuality as the vice and criminal depravity it is would make "marriage" for these freaks a moot issue.
So nice to see you still equating your own Mom's marriage to being a breeding cow on a farm.
Mitts Gold Plated Taliban

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Aug 27, 2014
Mick wrote:
and have to harvest children from some sperm bank or donor in order to give them "grandchildren."
Lots of heterosexual families wind up doing that very thing, or even adopt (gasp,) so once again we see how the defamations of and complaints about lgbt people apply just as readily to heterosexuals.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#21 Aug 27, 2014
Mick wrote:
I don't give a rat's tail what some politician-activist-judge says, homosexual "marriage" is a perversion.
Okay.
Mick wrote:
No coward in a black robe is going to change certain facts.
Okay.
Mick wrote:
Name the parents who hope their son will marry a man or their daughter will marry a woman,
MILLIONS of loving parents want their son or daughter to marry the right person, regardless of that person's gender. It's 2014. Where've you been?
Mick wrote:
and have to harvest children from some sperm bank or donor in order to give them "grandchildren."
THAT statement isn't based in ignorance and prejudice at all, is it?
Mick wrote:
That fact is NEVER going to change, no matter how much rhetoric comes from the gay lobby.
Okay.
Mick wrote:
Judges cannot override certain truths, no matter how fancy or long their "decisions" are.
When what are you all upset about? If judges ruling don't change anything for you, why do you care?
Speedieg

Tacoma, WA

#22 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
All sodomite and sodomite validating judges should be identified and remembered for any upcoming elections, then thrown out of office. Other State processes should eliminate gay friendly judges from the bench. Congress should impeach and convict any Federal judges validating this diseased and damaging behavior. Reestablishing homosexuality as the vice and criminal depravity it is would make "marriage" for these freaks a moot issue.
You ate not even worthy of life, you are a waste of DNA and a stain on humanity.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#23 Aug 27, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How many unconstitutional demands are allowed in one single post? Federal judges are not elected, so we can't throw them out of office at the next election. The appointment of judges is in the Constitution. States have no say over the federal courts, so there no constitutional provision for them to eliminate them. Judges cannot be removed as long as they exhibit "good behavior." Issuing rulings with which a moron like yourself takes offense would not violate the norms of good behavior.
So it looks like you'll be stuck ranting and fuming. Too bad for you.
Not a one of you can read. You are so stupid, you actually read what you want instead of what is said. This is probably why you are gay... because of this type of thought disorder. That makes many of you disabled and worthy of special treatment... in mental hospitals.

My reference to Federal Judges specifically said that Congress should impeach them, which has absolutely nothing to do with them being appointed instead of elected and is the Constitutional method of getting rid of perverts from the bench.

“TODAY SCOTUS RULED MARRIAGE”

Since: Aug 08

IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR ALL

#24 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
My reference to Federal Judges specifically said that Congress should impeach them, which has absolutely nothing to do with them being appointed instead of elected and is the Constitutional method of getting rid of perverts from the bench.
Congress CAN'T impeach them just because you DON'T agree with their rulings!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#25 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a one of you can read. You are so stupid, you actually read what you want instead of what is said. This is probably why you are gay... because of this type of thought disorder. That makes many of you disabled and worthy of special treatment... in mental hospitals.
My reference to Federal Judges specifically said that Congress should impeach them, which has absolutely nothing to do with them being appointed instead of elected and is the Constitutional method of getting rid of perverts from the bench.
Thank you for confirming that you are a moron. You did in fact say that voters should eliminate the judges at the next election. And you missed the fact that there are no grounds for impeaching these judges. Therefore, you are calling for yet another unconstitutional act.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#26 Aug 27, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a one of you can read. You are so stupid, you actually read what you want instead of what is said. This is probably why you are gay... because of this type of thought disorder. That makes many of you disabled and worthy of special treatment... in mental hospitals.
My reference to Federal Judges specifically said that Congress should impeach them, which has absolutely nothing to do with them being appointed instead of elected and is the Constitutional method of getting rid of perverts from the bench.
Here's the section of the Constitution that sets up the Judicial branch. I don't see where it says congress can impeach them.

ARTICLE III

SECTION 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

SECTION 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained.
**********
This is why you have been losing court cases faster than Rush Limbaugh is losing stations.

Your arguments make no logical sense.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#27 Aug 27, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the section of the Constitution that sets up the Judicial branch. I don't see where it says congress can impeach them.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 1.
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,
Not surprise you don't see it.

Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges) serve "during good behavior." That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachment and conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the history of our country.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#29 Aug 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprise you don't see it.
Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges) serve "during good behavior." That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachment and conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the history of our country.
NOPE. It means that they are there unless they break the law.

As a strict constructionist you sure read a lot into what is written in the Constitution.

SMILE/SMIRK
Mitts Gold Plated Taliban

Philadelphia, PA

#31 Aug 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprise you don't see it.
Justices and judges appointed
Our fishy taint friend mentioned elections, but who cares?

The real question is why you and your fellow legal geniuses aren't out insuring that state AGs enforce laws on the books which have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, the way you hilariously opine they should be doing with regard to sodomy.

In other words, you don't have the first beginning of a clue about legal or constitutional issues, closet case.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#32 Aug 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprise you don't see it.
Justices and judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution (Supreme Court justices, appellate and district court judges, and Court of International Trade judges) serve "during good behavior." That means they may keep their jobs unless Congress decides to remove them through a lengthy process called impeachment and conviction. Congress has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the history of our country.
So I have to ask since you seem so brilliant.

What do you think SCOTUS will say about a the constitutionality of the State of Indiana passing a law in 1997 that would jail ministers who perform religious rites?

Why do anti-gay folks defend photographers and bakers for religious freedom but ignore members of clergy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... Jun 10 Here Is One 4
News Supreme Court lets strict Wisconsin voter ID la... Mar '15 OId Sailor 3
News Wisconsin opposes $1.2 million attorney fees in... Feb '15 wayner1 20
News Same-sex marriage advocate dies of cancer Feb '15 Gremlin 8
News Indiana woman who fought gay marriage ban dies ... Feb '15 nhjeff 6
News What if France had the Second Amendment? Jan '15 okimar 2
News High court case could foil government suits ove... Jan '15 Yes no yes maybe 1
More from around the web