Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Prop 8 unconstitutional, overturned


  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#16 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,426 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:41 PM

it does sound like something that's a conflict of interest. but then when you think about it beyond the surface level, it doesn't make sense for judges to have to recuse themselves because of a case involving their own demographics. that type of thing is for when you're on the board of a company you're hearing or something, not because you happen to be the same race or gender or whatever as the case. Clarence Thomas has every right to hear cases about black stuff, Ruth Ginsberg can hear cases about women, and John Roberts can hear cases about gays.

#17 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:42 PM

lol. must spread rep. that one caught me by surprise.

#18 ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

    Insane Racist Moron

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,147 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:45 PM

I knew California had to be good for something. After this gets through the SCOTUS, we can go ahead and sell the state to Mexico. They can't offer us anything else of value.

#19 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,043 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:00 PM

Now that, THAT attention getter is outta the way...

#20 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:01 PM

This is good news indeed!

#21 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,043 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:02 PM

I thought one of them died?


Burrito supreme, and a chicken supreme, and a cutlass supreme. Supreme yeah!!!!!!

#22 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:05 PM

Hoping it will start a brown rush.

#23 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,920 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:17 PM

booooo

#24 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:18 PM

brown rush? sounds like something that falls under southcak's jurisdiction.

#25 tight lines

tight lines

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 585 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:20 PM

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.

#26 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:30 PM

brown rush? sounds like something that falls under southcak's jurisdiction.


A very huge, massive brown rush.

#27 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,920 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:30 PM

booooooooox2

#28 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:32 PM

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.


Believe me, if I ever get married again, the gov will not be involved.

#29 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:21 PM

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.


taxes.

#30 ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

    Insane Racist Moron

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,147 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:34 PM

By the by, it's interesting that its been declared unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, there is no mention of marriage in the California state constitution except the provision in Prop 8 (7.5). Besides that, according to the state constitution, no entity of state government should recognize marriage in any way. Having not read the decision by the judge, how do you declare an elected clause of a state constitution unconstitutional when there is no contradicting clause in said state constitution?

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.