that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

The Supreme Court rulings on the matter have given them that opening, and that's really due to the opinions of Justice Kennedy (who wasn't appointed by Obama).

Speaking as a lawyer, you'd be hardpressed to find many Scalia-type strict constructionists anymore in the legal profession. To the extent that the bar has conservatives at all (especially under the age of 40), they're generally much more libertarian and in favor of gay marriage. That's only going to be exacerbated over time. Believe me - plenty of judges have wanted to strike down bans on gay marriage for a long time, but were waiting for the right Supreme Court precedent to leverage.

(08-04-2014 05:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

The Supreme Court rulings on the matter have given them that opening, and that's really due to the opinions of Justice Kennedy (who wasn't appointed by Obama).

Speaking as a lawyer, you'd be hardpressed to find many Scalia-type strict constructionists anymore in the legal profession. To the extent that the bar has conservatives at all (especially under the age of 40), they're generally much more libertarian and in favor of gay marriage. That's only going to be exacerbated over time. Believe me - plenty of judges have wanted to strike down bans on gay marriage for a long time, but were waiting for the right Supreme Court precedent to leverage.

This occurred under the Obama administration. The courts don't care if people under 40 are more "libertarians" ...which they aren't. Granted most people who are libertarian are under 40, but that changes.

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

Yes, but Obama has nothing to do with it.

Supreme Court has set precedent with cases like Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor.

I believe most of the judges are Clinton/Bush I and II appointed.

And yet another 'gay thread' started by a conservative, I see.

(08-04-2014 06:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

Yes, but Obama has nothing to do with it.

Supreme Court has set precedent with cases like Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor.

I believe most of the judges are Clinton/Bush I and II appointed.

And yet another 'gay thread' started by a conservative, I see.

Yes he did and everyone with sense knows it.

(08-04-2014 06:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

Yes, but Obama has nothing to do with it.

Supreme Court has set precedent with cases like Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor.

I believe most of the judges are Clinton/Bush I and II appointed.

And yet another 'gay thread' started by a conservative, I see.

Yet another 'gay thread' response from a liberal, I see.

(08-04-2014 06:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 06:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

Yes, but Obama has nothing to do with it.

Supreme Court has set precedent with cases like Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor.

I believe most of the judges are Clinton/Bush I and II appointed.

And yet another 'gay thread' started by a conservative, I see.

Yes he did and everyone with sense knows it.

????

(08-04-2014 05:48 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 05:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

The Supreme Court rulings on the matter have given them that opening, and that's really due to the opinions of Justice Kennedy (who wasn't appointed by Obama).

Speaking as a lawyer, you'd be hardpressed to find many Scalia-type strict constructionists anymore in the legal profession. To the extent that the bar has conservatives at all (especially under the age of 40), they're generally much more libertarian and in favor of gay marriage. That's only going to be exacerbated over time. Believe me - plenty of judges have wanted to strike down bans on gay marriage for a long time, but were waiting for the right Supreme Court precedent to leverage.

This occurred under the Obama administration. The courts don't care if people under 40 are more "libertarians" ...which they aren't. Granted most people who are libertarian are under 40, but that changes.

What did Obama specifically do to convince federal judges to suddenly strike down gay marriage bans?

(08-04-2014 07:23 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 05:48 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 05:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 04:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  that suddenly under Obama, judge after judge has struck down state bans on gay marriage?

The Supreme Court rulings on the matter have given them that opening, and that's really due to the opinions of Justice Kennedy (who wasn't appointed by Obama).

Speaking as a lawyer, you'd be hardpressed to find many Scalia-type strict constructionists anymore in the legal profession. To the extent that the bar has conservatives at all (especially under the age of 40), they're generally much more libertarian and in favor of gay marriage. That's only going to be exacerbated over time. Believe me - plenty of judges have wanted to strike down bans on gay marriage for a long time, but were waiting for the right Supreme Court precedent to leverage.

This occurred under the Obama administration. The courts don't care if people under 40 are more "libertarians" ...which they aren't. Granted most people who are libertarian are under 40, but that changes.

What did Obama specifically do to convince federal judges to suddenly strike down gay marriage bans?

It's much bigger than just Obama. It's Obama's network.

Ah, mafia style arm-twisting. I knew we'd get around to it.

How exactly do you strong arm that many people with lifetime appointments, I wonder.

(08-04-2014 08:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Ah, mafia style arm-twisting. I knew we'd get around to it.

How exactly do you strong arm that many people with lifetime appointments, I wonder.

The core GOPers on this forum really don't put a lot of emphasis on things like logic.

(08-04-2014 08:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Ah, mafia style arm-twisting. I knew we'd get around to it.

How exactly do you strong arm that many people with lifetime appointments, I wonder.

You won't read it, but here it is

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-t...democrats/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/pol....html?_r=0

Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

(08-04-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

It's like that practice started in 2008 :headscratch:

(08-04-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

That's about the response I figured I'd get out of you. Way over your head Smaug, way over your head.

It's not a coincidence that liberalism ejaculated all over America once Obama too office. Anyone still thinking it can be explained with coincidences is beyond foolish.

(08-04-2014 08:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

That's about the response I figured I'd get out of you. Way over your head Smaug, way over your head.

It's not a coincidence that liberalism ejaculated all over America once Obama too office. Anyone still thinking it can be explained with coincidences is beyond foolish.

Of course it's not coincidence, you dolt.

Elections have consequences. I don't like his appointees, either, but I'm sure as hell not as surprised by them as you apparently are.

(08-04-2014 09:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

That's about the response I figured I'd get out of you. Way over your head Smaug, way over your head.

It's not a coincidence that liberalism ejaculated all over America once Obama too office. Anyone still thinking it can be explained with coincidences is beyond foolish.

Of course it's not coincidence, you dolt.

Elections have consequences. I don't like his appointees, either, but I'm sure as hell not as surprised by them as you apparently are.

So you finally agree that it was not coincidence.

(08-04-2014 09:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

That's about the response I figured I'd get out of you. Way over your head Smaug, way over your head.

It's not a coincidence that liberalism ejaculated all over America once Obama too office. Anyone still thinking it can be explained with coincidences is beyond foolish.

Of course it's not coincidence, you dolt.

Elections have consequences. I don't like his appointees, either, but I'm sure as hell not as surprised by them as you apparently are.

So you finally agree that it was not coincidence.

You hallucinated that I ever thought it was.

(08-04-2014 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Wow. A president appointed a bunch of judges aligned with him ideologically.

Whodathunkit?

That's about the response I figured I'd get out of you. Way over your head Smaug, way over your head.

It's not a coincidence that liberalism ejaculated all over America once Obama too office. Anyone still thinking it can be explained with coincidences is beyond foolish.

Of course it's not coincidence, you dolt.

Elections have consequences. I don't like his appointees, either, but I'm sure as hell not as surprised by them as you apparently are.

So you finally agree that it was not coincidence.

You hallucinated that I ever thought it was.

accept for the fact that you like to argue even when you agree. It's in your nature.

(08-04-2014 09:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 09:02 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 08:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  That's about the response I figured I'd get out of you. Way over your head Smaug, way over your head.

It's not a coincidence that liberalism ejaculated all over America once Obama too office. Anyone still thinking it can be explained with coincidences is beyond foolish.

Of course it's not coincidence, you dolt.

Elections have consequences. I don't like his appointees, either, but I'm sure as hell not as surprised by them as you apparently are.

So you finally agree that it was not coincidence.

You hallucinated that I ever thought it was.

Except for the fact that you like to argue even when you agree. It's in your nature.

FIFY.

Hey, you lobbed it out there.