Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Cou...

Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California's gay marriage ban

There are 237 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California's gay marriage ban. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Proposition 8 backers on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the gay marriage fray and restore California's voter-approved ban on same-sex nuptials.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#21 Sep 6, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet these people you would not call racists but anyone who dare stand up to them you naturally call a racist and this is why you are a hypocrite liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NxjzufJUA4gXX&feature=rel ated
You must have a very large brain to hold so much ignorance.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#22 Sep 6, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the average IQ of dems ?
"Rep. Yvette Clarke: The Dutch owned slaves in Brooklyn as recently as 1898 [VIDEO]"
A Democratic congresswoman from Brooklyn appears to believe that slavery existed in her district until 1898.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/05/dem-congres...
You are frightening and senseless if you attempt to draw a connection between a person's *chosen political affiliations* and their IQ.

That you cannot STAND what your "opponents" stand for does not translate into a scientific claim which is blatantly laughable.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#23 Sep 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The discussion was going just fine until once again we let one troll (luv sarah palin) derail everyone.
Granted; it's *EXACTLY* what they do. Nothing they say is *EVER* factual or pertinent. It's truly frightening. I can't understand that level of hatred.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#24 Sep 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Recent USA Today poll- 63% of Americans can't name a single SCOTUS justice.
The economy & jobs & medicare & social security & taxes etc etc can all be changed after the next election, then changed again after the next election, then changed back again.
SCOTUS appointments can NOT.
I think if the majority of Americans had ANY clue about the court and how it works and who's on it, elections would have an entirely different focus.
The sheeple only notice AFTER a big decision, like abortion or gay rights etc.
SCOTUS appointments can, indeed -- but with such an extended, virulent, nationwide fight that *most people* wouldn't even believe it was worth attempting; and so I believe that you are correct, but only by default.

ANYTHING can be handled, dealt with, changed. MANY people won't put in the effort where the fight would be extended and quite possibly exhausting.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#25 Sep 6, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet these people you would not call racists but anyone who dare stand up to them you naturally call a racist and this is why you are a hypocrite liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NxjzufJUA4gXX&feature=rel ated
You keep fighting. When you get slammed, you get vicious. WOW, WONDER HOW gay and pro-gay people feel. The day people of your ilk learn to keep their *snot-infected snouts* out of the business of others, this will all settle down and the fighting quite possibly might stop.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#26 Sep 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Recent USA Today poll- 63% of Americans can't name a single SCOTUS justice.
The economy & jobs & medicare & social security & taxes etc etc can all be changed after the next election, then changed again after the next election, then changed back again.
SCOTUS appointments can NOT.
I think if the majority of Americans had ANY clue about the court and how it works and who's on it, elections would have an entirely different focus.
The sheeple only notice AFTER a big decision, like abortion or gay rights etc.
way to politicize what is supposed to be an apolitical part of our govt....

While I appreciate your point...(and add ask those same people to name all the american idol judges and watch how many can...)
your suggestion that you should load the bench with liberals to push your agenda is offensive to the constitution and in general...
also, if you research the history of presidents getting what they think they are...it hasn't worked out well for them...
the vetting process is so bogged down that its a pig in a poke...

in short, keep your false left right paradigm in politics and out of justice please...

and say, didn't you just claim that you guys can rationally decide not to push this case?

take your lumps!
Junior Esquire

United States

#27 Sep 6, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS appointments can, indeed -- but with such an extended, virulent, nationwide fight that *most people* wouldn't even believe it was worth attempting; and so I believe that you are correct, but only by default.
ANYTHING can be handled, dealt with, changed. MANY people won't put in the effort where the fight would be extended and quite possibly exhausting.
Argumentum ad nauseum.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Sep 6, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see how it will set a prcedent if SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, as expected. States can do what they want in this area.
It depends on HOW they dismiss the case. As happened with Baker v Nelson they added a one sentence statement with their dismissal which had the effect of setting a binding precedent. Of course just HOW binding that precedent is has been debated for the past 40 years.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Sep 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
way to politicize what is supposed to be an apolitical part of our govt....
While I appreciate your point...(and add ask those same people to name all the american idol judges and watch how many can...)
your suggestion that you should load the bench with liberals to push your agenda is offensive to the constitution and in general...
also, if you research the history of presidents getting what they think they are...it hasn't worked out well for them...
the vetting process is so bogged down that its a pig in a poke...
in short, keep your false left right paradigm in politics and out of justice please...
and say, didn't you just claim that you guys can rationally decide not to push this case?
take your lumps!
OMG, just how ignorant are you?

The SCOTUS appointments have ALWAYS been politicized.

Are you seriously claiming the GOPasaurs presidents in the past didn't attempt to pack the court with conservatives whom they thought would support their interpretation of the constitution?

I can't think of any Democratic appointee that turned out more conservative, but there are many instances of Republican appointess turning out the be way more liberal than thought.

And yes, our side is able to weigh the pros & cons of pushing any particular case, which is exactly why they've decided to petition the SCOTUS to NOT accept the Prop 8 appeal. The anti-gays have no choice, they have to appeal every case as far as they can because they simply can't admit defeat at any level, even if it may possibly benefit them in the long run.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30 Sep 6, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
So in 1898 NY had slaves and owned by the Dutch?
Tell me , you wouldn't happen to be a Dem would you?
The dumbing-down of America is a serious problem.

We NEED standardized tests in Math, History, Spelling and the Sciences.

This is the result of State-by-State "standards" and grading "on the curve", and socially.

If this woman is one of the "cream of the crop" of her District, what does this say?

----------

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PROP8 AND SCOTUS ?
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#31 Sep 6, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
Argumentum ad nauseum.
Every time you say this, it makes literally no logical sense.

That you cling to the argument, however, is exponentially more damaging. You seem to believe your own opinions of others are fact.

You have a very, very, very long life ahead of you if you think *my posts* are going to adjust to accommodate you.

Just so you know.

Try me if you don't believe it.

You'll catch on fast.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#32 Sep 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, just how ignorant are you?
The SCOTUS appointments have ALWAYS been politicized.
Are you seriously claiming the GOPasaurs presidents in the past didn't attempt to pack the court with conservatives whom they thought would support their interpretation of the constitution?
I can't think of any Democratic appointee that turned out more conservative, but there are many instances of Republican appointess turning out the be way more liberal than thought.
And yes, our side is able to weigh the pros & cons of pushing any particular case, which is exactly why they've decided to petition the SCOTUS to NOT accept the Prop 8 appeal. The anti-gays have no choice, they have to appeal every case as far as they can because they simply can't admit defeat at any level, even if it may possibly benefit them in the long run.
Again and again, to me, this is why you rule.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#33 Sep 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, just how ignorant are you?
The SCOTUS appointments have ALWAYS been politicized.
Are you seriously claiming the GOPasaurs presidents in the past didn't attempt to pack the court with conservatives whom they thought would support their interpretation of the constitution?
I can't think of any Democratic appointee that turned out more conservative, but there are many instances of Republican appointess turning out the be way more liberal than thought.
And yes, our side is able to weigh the pros & cons of pushing any particular case, which is exactly why they've decided to petition the SCOTUS to NOT accept the Prop 8 appeal. The anti-gays have no choice, they have to appeal every case as far as they can because they simply can't admit defeat at any level, even if it may possibly benefit them in the long run.
you are so stupid.(see... whats the point in leading with an insult? lets instead pretend we are "adults" having a "discussion"...)

stances on law never stick to party lines....
if you are state's rights oriented, you strike down some conservative ideas and some liberal...

have you read the title of THIS thread?
total consensus on your side, huh?

right now, your side is doing things you think only the other side does....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#34 Sep 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are so stupid.(see... whats the point in leading with an insult? lets instead pretend we are "adults" having a "discussion"...)
stances on law never stick to party lines....
if you are state's rights oriented, you strike down some conservative ideas and some liberal...
have you read the title of THIS thread?
total consensus on your side, huh?
right now, your side is doing things you think only the other side does....
Umm, yes, have you?

You do realize that "Prop 8 backers" means the ANTI-GAYS.

Our side is nearly uniformly opposed to the SCOTUS taking the Prop 8 case.
Our side nearly uniformly agrees the SCOTUS should deny cert and uphold the 9th circuit court's ruling.
Our side is using STRATEGY to achieve our immediate goal- getting marriage equality back in California.

The anti-gays (i.e. Prop 8 backers) have no choice BUT to appeal, even if it risks an even BIGGER loss than just California.

Yep, you're as dumb as a rock, and you proved it yet again.

(there, I ended with an insult- is that better?)
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#35 Sep 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Our side nearly uniformly agrees the SCOTUS should deny cert and uphold the 9th circuit court's ruling.
Our side is using STRATEGY to achieve our immediate goal- getting marriage equality back in California.
The anti-gays (i.e. Prop 8 backers) have no choice BUT to appeal, even if it risks an even BIGGER loss than just California.
Yep, you're as dumb as a rock, and you proved it yet again.
(there, I ended with an insult- is that better?)
actually, you caught me, I had that flipped...
I admit a mistake, and I made one...

BUT are you sticking with your story that you uniformly want to avoid scotus review?
if I show you its not true will you rewrite your fictional story about consensus?
how about the fact you do not WANT SCOTUS REVIEW and how that effects your story line that the proponents want review just because they are just fanatics?

I really do think a lot of anger on your side is because of the narratives that are really unhinged from reality..
I mean, even at the DNC you guys had to be told that all R's dont want to throw grandma off a cliff...
talk about cults and fanatics!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#36 Sep 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, yes, have you?
You do realize that "Prop 8 backers" means the ANTI-GAYS.
Our side is nearly uniformly opposed to the SCOTUS taking the Prop 8 case.
Our side nearly uniformly agrees the SCOTUS should deny cert and uphold the 9th circuit court's ruling.
Our side is using STRATEGY to achieve our immediate goal- getting marriage equality back in California.
The anti-gays (i.e. Prop 8 backers) have no choice BUT to appeal, even if it risks an even BIGGER loss than just California.
Yep, you're as dumb as a rock, and you proved it yet again.
(there, I ended with an insult- is that better?)
in reality (that pesky real life thing) you are insulting me on stuff I know far better than you..this is a fact.

so feel free to insult anytime you want...but it doesn't communicate what you think it does...
I actually take it as a sign of your ignorance, not my intelligence..
folks who know don't talk like that...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#37 Sep 7, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on HOW they dismiss the case. As happened with Baker v Nelson they added a one sentence statement with their dismissal which had the effect of setting a binding precedent. Of course just HOW binding that precedent is has been debated for the past 40 years.
nope. it depends on HOW the case comes up for review, not how they dismiss it...
with Baker it came up on MANDATORY review, meaning they had to look at it...when its writ of cert, they do not...
should I insult you now?
whats the point?
in reality I know about this and you don't...that's enough for me...
so I TEACH you...
your welcome.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#38 Sep 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, you caught me, I had that flipped...
I admit a mistake, and I made one...
BUT are you sticking with your story that you uniformly want to avoid scotus review?
if I show you its not true will you rewrite your fictional story about consensus?
how about the fact you do not WANT SCOTUS REVIEW and how that effects your story line that the proponents want review just because they are just fanatics?
I really do think a lot of anger on your side is because of the narratives that are really unhinged from reality..
I mean, even at the DNC you guys had to be told that all R's dont want to throw grandma off a cliff...
talk about cults and fanatics!
Obviously I can't speak for every single pro-equality person in the nation, but I stand by my statement that the overwhelming majority on our side do NOT want the SCOTUS to take this case, including- most importantly- the plaintiffs in the case.

I said the anti-gay have to appeal because they have no other choice. If they don't appeal, then they have to admit defeat. They simply can't admit defeat.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#39 Sep 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in reality (that pesky real life thing) you are insulting me on stuff I know far better than you..this is a fact.
so feel free to insult anytime you want...but it doesn't communicate what you think it does...
I actually take it as a sign of your ignorance, not my intelligence..
folks who know don't talk like that...
And yet you're wrong on just about everything you post, and you even admitted it once.

I throw insults at you because you're a poser who pretends to know more than she really does.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40 Sep 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. it depends on HOW the case comes up for review, not how they dismiss it...
with Baker it came up on MANDATORY review, meaning they had to look at it...when its writ of cert, they do not...
should I insult you now?
whats the point?
in reality I know about this and you don't...that's enough for me...
so I TEACH you...
your welcome.
Oh please, you couldn't teach a dog to lick his own balls......

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump travel ban: U.S. Court clears way for int... Jun 20 Jeff Brightone 1
News Trump travel ban dealt another blow, faces high... Jun 14 stupid 1
News Another US appeals court keeps US President Don... Jun 13 Wildchild 10
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... Jun 13 Mohamma smellslik... 196
News 30-day deportation reprieve for Hawaii coffee f... Jun 9 RustyS 2
News 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh Dona... Jun 4 Cordwainer Trout 9
News Federal appeals court upholds Google trademark May '17 CodeTalker 1
More from around the web