Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8963 total)
130 online now:
Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 127 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,986 Year: 2,734/23,288 Month: 925/1,809 Week: 44/313 Day: 0/44 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Case against Kim Davis dismissed
jar
Member
Posts: 32165
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 103 (790440)
08-30-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:00 AM


Some really basics.
Faith writes:

Ah yes, an illegal law of the land, imposed on the nation without any action of the legislature, just autocratic judicial tyranny as usual.

Sorry Faith but it cannot have been an illegal law and it was not imposed by tyranny. Have you ever read the US Constitution Faith. The courts have no armies, no police, no enforcement agencies. They cannot ever be tyrants.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 103 (790441)
08-30-2016 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
08-30-2016 10:19 AM


Ah yes, now it's ANY opinion, right? Just any old opinion has a right if my opinion has a right. If someone thinks people should marry dogs that should be treated as an opinion to be respected. An opinion that has rights, that should be protected by law so that it can be acted upon. Of course. The opinion that men who are attracted to boys should be allowed to act on it is gaining favor in some quarters. Obviously since it's somebody's opinion it should be respected.

Well, that's what you seemed to be saying. If what you meant was that it's only tyranny if you and people who agree with you aren't allowed to act on your opinions, and fuck everyone else, then it would have been franker of you to say so; then we'd know where you stand.

And then you could try to explain what makes you so fucking special.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 33 of 103 (790444)
08-30-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Genomicus
08-30-2016 11:08 AM


Perhaps questions could be asked about the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation but I'm not up on the issues. I believe, however, that Lincoln had given fair warning and reasons for his action in advance, and that he had constitutional power to do what he did in a time of war, which already makes it far more legal than the Supreme Court's actions. The Supreme Court also acted against laws passed by the people in many states, which to my mind is a horrific violation of democratic principles.

However, Theodoric's bringing this up did remind me that my first take on the dismissal wasn't as positive as I reported it in my OP. The OP reflects more of the opinion of the Liberty Counsel than my own first take. I'm back to my first take: the dismissal was not the great victory I wish it had been, but more of a compromise that at least set her free from the outrageous mistreatment of her. I can go with compromise though, as I've argued here already. It may be the best way of dealing with this inherently rotten legal situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 08-30-2016 11:08 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 12:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 37 by ooh-child, posted 08-30-2016 1:11 PM Faith has responded
 Message 39 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-30-2016 4:35 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 34 of 103 (790446)
08-30-2016 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2016 11:18 AM


For me it's not about people, or WHO has a right to an opinion, it's about the worthiness of the opinion; , but of course as I was saying in that post, for your side it's about people and any old opinion is fine if somebody holds it. That WAS my point. You didn't get it but of course you wouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 11:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 12:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 103 (790453)
08-30-2016 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:38 AM


For me it's not about people, or WHO has a right to an opinion, it's about the worthiness of the opinion ...

Where the worthiness of opinions is, of course, determined by you, rather than, for example, me, or those awful gay people.

So, what makes you so fucking special?

but of course as I was saying in that post, for your side it's about people

It is not, I hope, discreditable in me to love my neighbor. There are precedents for so doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 36 of 103 (790454)
08-30-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:28 AM


The Supreme Court also acted against laws passed by the people in many states, which to my mind is a horrific violation of democratic principles.

That's what they're for, Faith. If the Supreme Court can't decide that a law is constitutional, then who can, and who will defend us from unconstitutional laws? If they couldn't "act against laws passed by the people" then the Constitution wouldn't be a Constitution, it would be a set of obsolete guidelines that everyone ignores.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ooh-child
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 37 of 103 (790463)
08-30-2016 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:28 AM


The Supreme Court also acted against laws passed by the people in many states, which to my mind is a horrific violation of democratic principles.

I've still never gotten an answer from you about this belief of yours. You keep saying that the people passed laws in several states, but what happens when the people vote to uphold gay marriage recognition - after voting against it? Then a few decades later, they vote again & this time they deny the rights of gays to marry? and then a couple of years later...you see where I'm going? When does it stop?

Have you thought that through? I'd appreciate a reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:38 PM ooh-child has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 38 of 103 (790467)
08-30-2016 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
08-30-2016 10:16 AM


Re: what about bring your child to work day?
Only if they themselves are hetero and are confined to the work area by chains or other manner of restraints.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 10:16 AM jar has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 788 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 39 of 103 (790468)
08-30-2016 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:28 AM


quote:
The Supreme Court also acted against laws passed by the people in many states, which to my mind is a horrific violation of democratic principles.

The US is not a democracy. It was intentionally not founded as one.

That the Supreme Court can act against laws passed by the people is EXACTLY how the founders wisely intended it.

JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:40 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 40 of 103 (790474)
08-30-2016 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ooh-child
08-30-2016 1:11 PM


I've still never gotten an answer from you about this belief of yours. You keep saying that the people passed laws in several states, but what happens when the people vote to uphold gay marriage recognition - after voting against it? Then a few decades later, they vote again & this time they deny the rights of gays to marry? and then a couple of years later...you see where I'm going? When does it stop?

Have you thought that through? I'd appreciate a reply.

Sorry if I didn't reply. What can I say? Times change, people's minds change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ooh-child, posted 08-30-2016 1:11 PM ooh-child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ooh-child, posted 08-31-2016 12:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 41 of 103 (790475)
08-30-2016 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ThinAirDesigns
08-30-2016 4:35 PM


Read the Constitution. Majority rules. Democracy or not.

Lincoln was himself reluctant to force the pro-slavery South to give it up even though he disagreed with it, because he believed in their right to govern themselves. He thought it required diplomacy and time to bring them around. Apparently the war allowed him to force it on them.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-30-2016 4:35 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 7:00 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 45 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-30-2016 7:51 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 42 of 103 (790477)
08-30-2016 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2016 12:15 PM


The Supreme Court is always redefining the Constitution. They certainly can't be trusted to interpret it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 6:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 43 of 103 (790480)
08-30-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
08-30-2016 6:42 PM


The Supreme Court is always redefining the Constitution. They certainly can't be trusted to interpret it.

And yet that is in fact the job with which the Constitution entrusts them in Article III Section 2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 44 of 103 (790481)
08-30-2016 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
08-30-2016 6:40 PM


Read the Constitution. Majority rules.

No. Read the Constitution. There are things the government cannot do, even if it has the mandate of the majority.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 788 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 45 of 103 (790487)
08-30-2016 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
08-30-2016 6:40 PM


quote:
Read the Constitution. Majority rules.

Apparently you haven't read the Constitution for comprehension. It's NOT "majority rules". It has quite a variety of checks and balances against exactly that.

Wow.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:00 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020