Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Marbury is judicial review, not federalism. It applies to all levels.

[Guest One Trick Pony]

This is, again, an issue that the court's SHOULD have left to the people.

 

You want to ENSURE resentment and major heat over an issue for many years to come? Pass it by judicial fiat.

             -=Mike

...Who couldn't care less about gay marriage --- it's the principle of courts making laws

Yeah like that Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision. What were they thinking there?!?! It's not like the courts are supposed to determine the legality of actions based on interpretation of the state constitution (or federal in the Supreme Court's case). They're just there to say what the most people want to see.

 

Owned

Wow, bringing NO content to 2 boards now?

 

Quick question (and this is serious): With the court's ruling, can something like polygamy be illegal in MA any longer? Going with the verdict, it has to be legal now.

-=Mike

I'd rather bring no content than false content.

 

There was also nothing else to comment on in response to your lack of being able to interpret the court's interpretations.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I saw polygamy mentioned above. Now that I sit here and think about it, why the hell is that illegal anyway?

Because most fat, old, smelly politicians can't get 2 chicks. If they can't get 2 chicks than neither can you

[EricMM 0]

Um I would just like to point out that MY church WILL and HAS performed marriage ceremonies for same sex people.

 

I guess you can't get a marriage license or anything, but you can be "religiously married."

 

Not every church is ignorant.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Um I would just like to point out that MY church WILL and HAS performed marriage ceremonies for same sex people.

 

I guess you can't get a marriage license or anything, but you can be "religiously married."

 

Not every church is ignorant.

Don't tell the Vatican...they'll be pissed

[EricMM 0]

We're not catholic.

[Guest MikeSC]

Maybe a world of difference, but you are saying the Supreme Court getting involved in the law making(or disbanning) is wrong. So, by your logic, the case I pointed would be wrong of them doing it. Roe vs Wade isn't the Supreme Court going out of line, it proves that the US or no State Constitution had previsions for this. So they were not Un-Constitution. How is that stepping out of its duties?

With Roe v Wade, since there were, in your own words, no provisions for abortion --- the court had NO say in the issue whatsoever. They INVENTED a right to privacy (there is none in the Constitution) to legalize birth control and then invented a right to abortion. That is NOT the place of the Courts whatsoever.

 

You can find exceptions to any rule. I oppose murder --- but if you had a shot at killing Hitler before he REALLY started the massacres, I wouldn't have a problem with you killing him.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Mike makes himself more and more irrelevant by the minute.

 

Congratulations!

 

Don't you have a Bill Kristol book to read?

[Guest MikeSC]

This is closer to Roe v Wade, which the Court had no business getting involved with.

                                -=Mike

Not even close, Mike.

 

Gay people are clearly being discriminated against with the law that was shot down. The law was contrary to the Mass. state constitution. The Mass. Supreme Court was well within their bounds in striking down the law, given Marbury v. Madison et al.

 

Unless you're arguing against Marbury, you've got no grounds on this one.

As pointed elsewhere, Marbury v Madison had NO bearing on state courts. It had to do solely with federal courts.

 

And, again, with this decision, what "unions" CAN be found illegal?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Bullshit.

 

So, you're saying that state courts have no right to judicial review?

 

The state constitution defined marriage as a union between two people. It can be argued (quite successfully, I might add) that laws against incest and etc. are in the interest of public health. Two people = no polygamy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike makes himself more and more irrelevant by the minute.

 

Congratulations!

 

Don't you have a Bill Kristol book to read?

Don't you have an inept candidate to support?

-=Mike

...God knows he NEEDS it. I COULD be a wise-ass and ask if you supported the McCain-Feingold bill, but I won't here.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I COULD be a wise-ass and ask if you supported the McCain-Feingold bill, but I won't here.

 

Yes, I do. However, YOUR candidate necessitated any other candidate who wants to have any shot at a fair election to pass up campaign finance reform and public financing.

[Guest MikeSC]

I COULD be a wise-ass and ask if you supported the McCain-Feingold bill, but I won't here.

 

Yes, I do. However, YOUR candidate necessitated any other candidate who wants to have any shot at a fair election to pass up campaign finance reform and public financing.

Man, you make this SO easy.

 

Yes, I do. However, YOUR candidate necessitated any other candidate who wants to have any shot at a fair election to pass up campaign finance reform and public financing.

 

Of course, Bush has raised his money COMPLETELY legally --- both in 2000 and up to this point. So, you can't gripe about that.

 

And, heck, don't see many conservatives giving MILLIONS to attack Dems as Soros is doing to Bush.

 

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

"Vote Democratic --- We MEAN What We Say --- Except When It Inconveniences Us. Then Screw It."

 

You know what's REALLY ironic --- the VERY thing we who opposed the bill said would happen --- has happened.

 

That is some powerful convictions you got there, Tyler.

 

You definitely cleared up A LOT of questions about yourself here.

-=Mike

...Just checking, do you actually HAVE any convictions?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And, heck, don't see many conservatives giving MILLIONS to attack Dems as Soros is doing to Bush.

 

Richard Mellon Scaife.

 

Of course, Bush has raised his money COMPLETELY legally --- both in 2000 and up to this point. So, you can't gripe about that.

 

Sure he did, and so is Dean right now. I'm not sure where your argument is here.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

[Vyce 0]

Maybe a world of difference, but you are saying the Supreme Court getting involved in the law making(or disbanning) is wrong. So, by your logic, the case I pointed would be wrong of them doing it. Roe vs Wade isn't the Supreme Court going out of line, it proves that the US or no State Constitution had previsions for this. So they were not Un-Constitution. How is that stepping out of its duties?

Mike's analysis of Roe v. Wade is correct.

 

The "right of privacy" is not one of the enumerated powers found in the Constitution - it's a legal fiction that the Court has read into the Constitution as being an "implied" power. But it doesn't exist there on its own.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The "right of privacy" is not one of the enumerated powers found in the Constitution - it's a legal fiction that the Court has read into the Constitution as being an "implied" power. But it doesn't exist there on its own.

 

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank?

 

Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either.

[Vyce 0]

Someone mention Soros?

 

Soros is on an entirely different level than Scaife.

 

Soros is outspending Scaife by at LEAST three times as much.

[Guest MikeSC]

And, heck, don't see many conservatives giving MILLIONS to attack Dems as Soros is doing to Bush.

 

Richard Mellon Scaife.

 

Soros isn't quite getting the same heat, now is he? And he's giving MORE money.

 

Ironically, the party that LIVES AND DIES with the "big-money" contributions is the DNC.

 

Of course, Bush has raised his money COMPLETELY legally --- both in 2000 and up to this point. So, you can't gripe about that.

 

Sure he did, and so is Dean right now. I'm not sure where your argument is here.

 

The Democrats were the ones who wanted the rules.

 

If the Dems WANT the system, they should ABIDE by it.

 

Bush never wanted the bill. He knew it was a bad idea and signed it anyway. Easily, his worst move as President.

 

Hey, I don't fault Dean for doing it.

 

I fault those who SUPPORTED the bill for approving.

-=Mike

..."Let's take the money out of politics. Well, out of the Republican side, anyway"

[Guest MikeSC]

The "right of privacy" is not one of the enumerated powers found in the Constitution - it's a legal fiction that the Court has read into the Constitution as being an "implied" power. But it doesn't exist there on its own.

 

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank?

 

Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either.

You do realize that these fall under Congressional oversight of interstate commerce, don't you? While the Court has BASTARDIZED how much that actually governs (as was pointed out when Clinton's bill banning guns from school zones was struck down, it was noted that using Congressional logic, EVERYTHING can be governed by Congress), it does clearly govern these.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Soros isn't quite getting the same heat, now is he? And he's giving MORE money.

 

Bullshit.

 

Ironically, the party that LIVES AND DIES with the "big-money" contributions is the DNC.

 

"Oh? We do?"

 

The Democrats were the ones who wanted the rules.

 

If the Dems WANT the system, they should ABIDE by it.

 

Bush never wanted the bill. He knew it was a bad idea and signed it anyway. Easily, his worst move as President.

 

You know full well that if one person doesn't abide by it, the rest absolutely can't if they want any shot at winning the election under the current system. That's McCain-Feingold's flaw, and it's unavoidable as long as they allow people to opt out of the system.

 

FYI, I hate the fact that Dean had to opt out of Public Financing, because quite frankly, the system should be what every candidate is forced to abide by. However, you can't win an election when the other side outspends you by $165 million. It's a physical impossibility.

 

..."Let's take the money out of politics. Well, out of the Republican side, anyway"

 

No, money should be taken out of politics, period. It's an incredibly weak argument that "free speech" encompasses flooding the elections with special interest money.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat.

-=Mike

I doubt that. McCain votes with his own party more than Zell Miller does.

[Vyce 0]

The "right of privacy" is not one of the enumerated powers found in the Constitution - it's a legal fiction that the Court has read into the Constitution as being an "implied" power. But it doesn't exist there on its own.

 

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank?

 

Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either.

The steps the Court took to interpret the necessary & proper clause in both McCulloch and the various administrative agency cases (of the late 1800s) is NOTHING compared to the cartwheels and gymnastics the Court took to establish abortion rights under the right of privacy in Roe.

 

Your administrative agency example isn't the best to use, either, given the history of the non-delegation doctrine.

[Guest MikeSC]

Soros isn't quite getting the same heat, now is he? And he's giving MORE money.

 

Bullshit.

 

Yup, THAT is an impartial site. Funny, put Soros and Soros, George in the search engine and --- nothing.

 

Odd, huh?

 

Soros gave $10M (the biggest single contribution from an individual in history --- beating out $7m by Haim Saban for *gasp* the Democrats in 2002) to found ACT, in a clear violation of the spirit of McCain-Feingold (which, BTW, Soros highly supported).

 

Heck, Democratic groups do this in numbers that DWARF what the GOP does. These groups, referred to as 527's (the section of the tax code making them legal), currently have Democratic groups outspending Republican groups $185M to $82M.

 

THIS IS WHAT MCCAIN - FEINGOLD WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP --- and it's BIGGEST supporters, the Democratic party, scam their away around it remarkably well.

 

The Dems live and die with soft-money. It is ALL they have --- and it is what was supposed to be stopped.

 

Ironically, the party that LIVES AND DIES with the "big-money" contributions is the DNC.

 

"Oh? We do?"

 

Look at the soft-money numbers. Jane Fonda gave $12.8M to "Pro-Choice Vote" (any guess as to who they side with?). 9 of the 10 soft-money donors were Democrats.

 

The Republicans have raised a total of about $133M in hard money while the Democrats have raised about $45.7M. Hard money is TIGHTLY governed and the amount an individual can give in hard money is very restricted.

 

But, in SOFT money, the Dems have more than TWICE as much money.

 

Odd, huh?

 

The Democrats were the ones who wanted the rules.

 

If the Dems WANT the system, they should ABIDE by it.

 

Bush never wanted the bill. He knew it was a bad idea and signed it anyway. Easily, his worst move as President.

 

You know full well that if one person doesn't abide by it, the rest absolutely can't if they want any shot at winning the election under the current system. That's McCain-Feingold's flaw, and it's unavoidable as long as they allow people to opt out of the system.

 

Bush has raised hard money and has not relied on soft money. Bush's money was raised completely by the rules.

 

The Dems are LADEN with soft money which can be raised easily with no restraints on contributions by individuals --- which is why Dems have far more than the GOP.

 

FYI, I hate the fact that Dean had to opt out of Public Financing, because quite frankly, the system should be what every candidate is forced to abide by. However, you can't win an election when the other side outspends you by $165 million. It's a physical impossibility.

 

When one side annihilates you with soft money, it's all moot.

 

..."Let's take the money out of politics. Well, out of the Republican side, anyway"

 

No, money should be taken out of politics, period. It's an incredibly weak argument that "free speech" encompasses flooding the elections with special interest money.

 

And, as we have seen with the whole judicial filibuster, special interests have A LOT of power over some.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat.

-=Mike

I doubt that. McCain votes with his own party more than Zell Miller does.

I'd actually like to see numbers on that.

 

I'm legitimately curious.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Marbury is judicial review, not federalism. It applies to all levels.

Oh, for a sec I was gonna say that "Their State Constitution had a supremecy clause that overruled all other laws?!"

 

Next time just say "Judicial Review" rather than Marbury, since that's a bit more accurate to how the facts were argued. But yeah, I now agree with you.

[Justice 0]

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat.

-=Mike

I doubt that. McCain votes with his own party more than Zell Miller does.

I'd actually like to see numbers on that.

 

I'm legitimately curious.

-=Mike

I believe that McCain votes Republican (Way back in a Time issue around the time Jim Jeffords was leaving the party) about 75%-73% of the time. Zell, actually, votes 23%-27% of the time (Or thereabouts). I'm pretty sure on this, though I'm sure someone could get me exact tallies.

[Guest MikeSC]

I believe that McCain votes Republican (Way back in a Time issue around the time Jim Jeffords was leaving the party) about 75%-73% of the time. Zell, actually, votes 23%-27% of the time (Or thereabouts). I'm pretty sure on this, though I'm sure someone could get me exact tallies.

Damn.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The magazine was Newsweek (I was a subscriber back then) and they had this huge chart showing how many times pols voted with their party. If they voted around 80-something-percent they were considered loyal.

 

McCain was pretty loyal but Zell was off the charts.

 

I'll see if I can find it.

 

EDIT: It's no FAUX NEWS LOL2003 but I wrote an article at the time about Jeffords' defection, and I used Newsweek's chart for some references. Here's what I wrote at the time (forgot I still had this around):

 

While this statistic won’t win him (Jeffords) any awards from conservative voting organizations, his party loyalty record (which was 55 percent) isn’t nearly as bad as some other senators from both sides of the aisle. Senator Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., earned a 37 percent rating, and Zell Miller, D-Ga., was lowest of all senators with a 25 percent rating. Interestingly enough, “maverick” John McCain, R-Ariz., earned an 83 percent rating, not too bad for someone who is rumored to make a party defection in the near future.