Kim Davis
Re: Kim Davis
by John Galt » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:50 am
i don't agree with Obergefell but i do agree with Dylan. outside of constitutional amendment there is nothing to do here. i don't think you'd get 3/4ths of the states to agree to it, even if it is a reassertment of state rights. it would just be painted as bigotry and won't even be attempted
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.
-
John Galt - Technical Admin
- Posts: 14869
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
- Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 719 times
- Been thanked: 1497 times
- Political Leaning: Classic Liberal
Re: Kim Davis
by Motown » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:33 pm
Dylan, I didn't quote because when I tried to I saw three layers of quotes. I'm not trying to dodge you, I'm just trying to simplify things.
1) Kentucky has every right to disagree with the ruling. The USSC said in 2013, in the Windsor case, that states define marriage and the feds don't. That's how they overturned DOMA. I agree with you on your reasoning argument...if the reasoning were clear that would be one thing but I don't think it's clear here. They contradicted themselves.
2) They did extend equal protection in 2015 but you saying that ignores my point which is they had no reason to hear the case in the first place.
3) You agree with my main complaint about their rulings but dismiss it why? Because you agree with what they said in this case?
4) I'm new here and I don't know your customs but where I'm from I'd wait to hear Galt speak for himself, I'm not paying attention to your interpretation of what you think he meant. I wait for it to come from the horses mouth.
1) Kentucky has every right to disagree with the ruling. The USSC said in 2013, in the Windsor case, that states define marriage and the feds don't. That's how they overturned DOMA. I agree with you on your reasoning argument...if the reasoning were clear that would be one thing but I don't think it's clear here. They contradicted themselves.
2) They did extend equal protection in 2015 but you saying that ignores my point which is they had no reason to hear the case in the first place.
3) You agree with my main complaint about their rulings but dismiss it why? Because you agree with what they said in this case?
4) I'm new here and I don't know your customs but where I'm from I'd wait to hear Galt speak for himself, I'm not paying attention to your interpretation of what you think he meant. I wait for it to come from the horses mouth.
-
Motown - Council Member
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:43 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Kim Davis
by Dylan » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:45 pm
Oh and you should totally listen to my chaneling Galt. I've argued with that madman for a decade now I know his legal opinions better than my own at this point 
-
Dylan - Vice President
- Posts: 10741
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:34 pm
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 1038 times
- Been thanked: 916 times
- Political Leaning: Middle of the Road
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 287 guests