Author Topic: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings  (Read 17359 times)

Online jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 10700
  • Total likes: 932
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 8015
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #60 on: June 26, 2015, 12:23:45 PM »
Your right it was Kennedy appointed by Reagan...
Everyone knew this was coming. Kennedy told me a year ago he'd vote for gay marriage.
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 6669
  • Total likes: 1056
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #61 on: June 26, 2015, 12:24:53 PM »
Do individuals usually get more liberal as they get older?
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline Achas Veachas

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 4223
  • Total likes: 13
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #62 on: June 26, 2015, 12:25:30 PM »
Stop the jokes! The country was based on a moral code of conduct and the SCOTUS just usurped that entire code.
The only moral code this country is founded on is the constitution and the bill of rights. Unless you can prove that the recent ruling is unconstitutional (like some are claiming regarding the ACA ruling) you have no case here.
Curiosity made the cat smarter.

Online Proisrael

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jun 2012
  • Posts: 980
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Krayot,Israel
  • Programs: SPG,Hilton,Club Carlson
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #63 on: June 26, 2015, 12:26:11 PM »
No I want the old religious views this country was founded upon (Protestant work ethic, morality, whatever name you want to call it) to make the rules.

Like Roberts said in the dissent:

Gay rights can celebrate a win today and they should celebrate but this was not based on anything to do with the constitution.

Online Proisrael

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jun 2012
  • Posts: 980
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Krayot,Israel
  • Programs: SPG,Hilton,Club Carlson
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #64 on: June 26, 2015, 12:27:54 PM »
Do individuals usually get more liberal as they get older?

I think the opposite is true. Like they say: If you are under 20 (today probably 30) and your not a liberal you have no heart and if your over 30 and not a conservative you have no head.

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 6669
  • Total likes: 1056
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #65 on: June 26, 2015, 12:29:44 PM »
Like Roberts said in the dissent:

Gay rights can celebrate a win today and they should celebrate but this was not based on anything to do with the constitution.
This is what is great about these discussions. Quote the guy to make your point when he agrees with you but bash him when he disagrees.
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1358
  • Total likes: 31
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #66 on: June 26, 2015, 12:30:57 PM »
A moral view. A historical view that has held sway since the beginning of civilization. Not an enlightened decision based on popular opinion.

Homosexuality was widely accepted in multiple civilizations. It became more taboo as Christianity spread. As did general sexual discussions. Native Americans, Greeks, Romans, etc. 

Online aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 6771
  • Total likes: 1501
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #67 on: June 26, 2015, 12:31:00 PM »
This country was based on a set of rules they are not meant to be fundamentally changed. Whats next that we should change because of feelings? Love who you want but Marriage as defined by LAW should never change.
why should marriage be defined by law at all
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used to start a religious discussion.

Offline CS1

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 3655
  • Total likes: 44
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
    • View Profile
    • California Gourmet Premium Chocolate
  • Location: United States
  • Programs: DDSLA, DDSCLE, MarriottSPGPlat Feb2020
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #68 on: June 26, 2015, 12:32:37 PM »
Do individuals usually get more liberal as they get older?

it looks like they do -- it's too mellow. Also, no problem with equal rights -- but to redefine marriage and impose it on each state is not their place.
For example -- if they are really redefining marriage to include these unions for the sake of equal rights, then the Suprem Court is not providing equal rights to those who want a 3-partner union.
i.e. Until what point does broadening the 'marriage' definition end?

Online aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 6771
  • Total likes: 1501
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #69 on: June 26, 2015, 12:33:53 PM »
I think the opposite is true. Like Krauthammer says: If you are under 20 (today probably 30) and your not a liberal you have no heart and if your over 30 and not a conservative you have no head.
FTFY. Typical statement for a liberal turned quasi conservative
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used to start a religious discussion.

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1358
  • Total likes: 31
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #70 on: June 26, 2015, 12:33:56 PM »
it looks like they do -- it's too mellow. Also, no problem with equal rights -- but to redefine marriage and impose it on each state is not their place.
For example -- if they are really redefining marriage to include these unions for the sake of equal rights, then the Suprem Court is not providing equal rights to those who want a 3-partner union.
i.e. Until what point does broadening the 'marriage' definition end?

Moronic slippery slope argument. Equal means the same as someone else. Where do you see marriage trinities?

Online aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 6771
  • Total likes: 1501
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2015, 12:35:11 PM »
Moronic slippery slope argument. Equal means the same as someone else. Where do you see marriage trinities?
Mormons did it until relatively recently
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used to start a religious discussion.

Offline Achas Veachas

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 4223
  • Total likes: 13
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #72 on: June 26, 2015, 12:36:05 PM »
Mormons did it until relatively recently
Moronic slippery slope argument. Equal means the same as someone else. Where do you see legal marriage trinities?
FTFH
Curiosity made the cat smarter.

Offline ChAiM'l

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2010
  • Posts: 1819
  • Total likes: 30
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 4
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2015, 12:37:49 PM »
Moronic slippery slope argument. Equal means the same as someone else. Where do you see marriage trinities?
Equal rights for the second spouse to marry the person, just like the first one was allowed.

Offline Aj3042

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Posts: 1391
  • Total likes: 1
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: The Oval Office
  • Programs: Presidential Limo Gold, Secret Service Detail Platinum, Air Force One Diamond, White House Free Days, Red Telephone Priority Service.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #74 on: June 26, 2015, 12:38:52 PM »
Homosexuality was widely accepted in multiple civilizations. It became more taboo as Christianity spread. As did general sexual discussions. Native Americans, Greeks, Romans, etc.
Iv'e heard that liberal media claim. This country was founded on Christian principles of morality so it's irrelevant anyways.
The only moral code this country is founded on is the constitution and the bill of rights. Unless you can prove that the recent ruling is unconstitutional (like some are claiming regarding the ACA ruling) you have no case here.
That's simply false. If it were true a whole host of other things (polygamy, marrying animals, etc.) would also e legal. Who knows? Give it a few years and at the rate Western society is "progressing" (going backwards) maybe they will be. After all, the guy loves his dog and the Const. doesn't ban it.