This should be a states right decision just like abortion and once again the SC is going to upset the apple cart right before an election. Personally I have no problem with every state passing a law that gay people can be married. While I never researched it I would think 65% or more of Americans don't have a problem with it.

I also believe this woman has the right to refuse to take part in a gay marriage. But if its part of her job duty, her rights come at the cost of her job if she does not want to issues the paper. Personal convictions do not over ride the rights of others....

step down

I do think a ruling to send this back to the state will drive the democrats to the polls. Not only democrats but a lot of people that might be leaning republican could switch their vote. People are almost as afraid of the religious right, as they are the looney left.

My guess is most Americans want both sides to stop trying to put their moral judgment on all of us. Your religion is just like being gay........

ITS PERSONAL, SO KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. STOP TRYING TO FORCE IT ON OTHERS

Correct on all counts

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:50 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

It barely went through originally, with Kennedy being the deciding vote and Roberts being STRONGLY against it and authoring the descent. Court is way more conservative now, wouldn't stun me in the least to see this happen.

It *should* happen because the constitution does not grant authority for gay marriage or gays in general. This is what happens when the SC has an activist side to it. Just like in the original RoeVWade case, there was nothing in the constitution that allowed this. If there's not, then it goes to the states.

(01-09-2024 12:09 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:06 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Nope, I'd be pretty happy with non-lifetime appointments and real ethics rules that applied and had teeth. Highly doubt the founders intended on having judges on the court for 40+ years and for there to basically be no rules that apply to them at all. The idea anyone qualified enough to be on the court would have lived 40 more years back in those days would have been pretty hard to imagine, and I know they thought impeachment was a real check on them that political realities have made meaningless.

Term limits across the board for everyone.

Yep, start with Congress and work your way up. You can't approve of lifetime congress critters and then complain about the Supreme Court.

Agree regarding Congress, but there is at least some recourse (albeit in some cases near impossible depending on Gerrymandering, location, and money) to get rid of people in Congress. There's 1 way to get rid of a SC justice right now, impeachment, and been rendered essentially impossible. There's effectively zero "check" on the SC at this point and that's not healthy long term no matter what your political views are.

I don't want the response to our broken systems of checks and balances to be to pack the court, do that once and essentially every time power changes hands in Washington you'll just have the "winning" side increasing the number of judges to get their team in the majority until you have some comedic number. The number is fine, and IMO the mechanism of the President selecting them and the Senate confirming them is fine as well. It's them being there for life and having no rules at all that apply to them that's the problem.

(01-09-2024 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:50 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

It barely went through originally, with Kennedy being the deciding vote and Roberts being STRONGLY against it and authoring the descent. Court is way more conservative now, wouldn't stun me in the least to see this happen.

It *should* happen because the constitution does not grant authority for gay marriage or gays in general. This is what happens when the SC has an activist side to it. Just like in the original RoeVWade case, there was nothing in the constitution that allowed this. If there's not, then it goes to the states.

While I agree with you in principle, there is no good outcome to the SC ruling that way. And outside of Bible thumping, who cares if gays get married anyway? It affects me not one bit.

(01-09-2024 10:40 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Send it back to the States to decide would be my guess once they make that ruling.

ala Roe v Wade?

BIG difference between killing babies and gays getting married.

not really, both produce no children.

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:14 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Damn, I remember when there were people saying that the court wasn't going to be coming for gay marriage next after Dobbs. Those people always had smooth brains of course they are, Thomas it out in his concurrence perfectly.

We can only pray for something like that.

We can pray for it, but the genie is out of the bottle.

I know. Remember when they told us it was just about equality?
First they demand tolerance, then acceptance, then celebration, then participation.

Where would you say we are now?

(01-09-2024 12:24 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:40 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Send it back to the States to decide would be my guess once they make that ruling.

ala Roe v Wade?

BIG difference between killing babies and gays getting married.

not really, both produce no children.

And I contend that gays not reproducing is a GOOD thing.

(01-09-2024 12:25 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:14 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Damn, I remember when there were people saying that the court wasn't going to be coming for gay marriage next after Dobbs. Those people always had smooth brains of course they are, Thomas it out in his concurrence perfectly.

We can only pray for something like that.

We can pray for it, but the genie is out of the bottle.

I know. Remember when they told us it was just about equality?
First they demand tolerance, then acceptance, then celebration, then participation.

Where would you say we are now?

I am not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying it's a losing stance to take politically right now. There are way more important wins we need besides whether or not not gays can get married. Most of them are hurting no one.

(01-09-2024 12:09 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:06 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Nope, I'd be pretty happy with non-lifetime appointments and real ethics rules that applied and had teeth. Highly doubt the founders intended on having judges on the court for 40+ years and for there to basically be no rules that apply to them at all. The idea anyone qualified enough to be on the court would have lived 40 more years back in those days would have been pretty hard to imagine, and I know they thought impeachment was a real check on them that political realities have made meaningless.

Term limits across the board for everyone.

Yep, start with Congress and work your way up. You can't approve of lifetime congress critters and then complain about the Supreme Court.

Exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-09-2024 12:28 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I am not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying it's a losing stance to take politically right now. There are way more important wins we need besides whether or not not gays can get married. Most of them are hurting no one.

I agree. It's a losing stance because we have too many Americans who just go along to get along with whatever twisted idea the Left comes up with.

This is a long way from "just letting them get married".

Are you real sure it's gays putting those books in school libraries?

The Supreme Court became a political arm by delving into social issues in the 60s- early 90s… nobody complained on the left when 6 people decided abortion for 50 years. Now when this court went neutral on the issue, that’s when people freaked out.

This isn’t calling out any poster in particular, but society writ large.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of the time you have to compromise to win.

(01-09-2024 12:23 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:50 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

It barely went through originally, with Kennedy being the deciding vote and Roberts being STRONGLY against it and authoring the descent. Court is way more conservative now, wouldn't stun me in the least to see this happen.

It *should* happen because the constitution does not grant authority for gay marriage or gays in general. This is what happens when the SC has an activist side to it. Just like in the original RoeVWade case, there was nothing in the constitution that allowed this. If there's not, then it goes to the states.

While I agree with you in principle, there is no good outcome to the SC ruling that way. And outside of Bible thumping, who cares if gays get married anyway? It affects me not one bit.

The constitution isnt based on "who cares" but whether "which authority" gets to decide that. If its not in the constitution, then it goes to the states. If I live in the state and I do care, and a politician goes against my wishes, I have recourse to vote them out. Thats how its supposed to work.

The reason they ran off to the SC court was because California voted down gay marriage. And thats exactly how the process should work out; if the people of a state doesnt want gay marriage, then they can vote it down. If they want it, they can vote for it. Thats how anything thats not in the constitution is supposed to work, and it works very well until someone runs off to an activist court and gets a cart-blanc ruling that everyone has to follow.

I'm really in complete agreement with you guys, I just don't want a Democrat in the White House in '25. Not trying to be two faced, but there are battles that could be fought when that one is won.

(01-09-2024 12:44 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I'm really in complete agreement with you guys, I just don't want a Democrat in the White House in '25. Not trying to be two faced, but there are battles that could be fought when that one is won.

The only way a democrat is in the office in 25 is if they figure out how to steal a hell of a lot more votes.

(01-09-2024 12:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:44 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I'm really in complete agreement with you guys, I just don't want a Democrat in the White House in '25. Not trying to be two faced, but there are battles that could be fought when that one is won.

The only way a democrat is in the office in 25 is if they figure out how to steal a hell of a lot more votes.

Not if republicans don't have a plan to offer Americans to solve the problems created by this administration. Here's my outline of where I would go):

Balanced budget (without confiscatory taxes)
Border security and rational immigration policy (Canada's points-based merit system would be a good starting point, a wall where a wall works, heightened electronic and other surveillance and border patrol resources elsewhere)
Health care (republicans whiffed badly on replacing Obamacare in 2021, better have a solid plan with votes to implement it)
Welfare reform (only way to get to balaced budget without confiscatory taxes)
Infrastructure (concrete plan, not pie in the sky vaporware)
Education (like allegations about health care in 2008, a "failed" system that spends more than anybody else and delivers substandard results)
Growth (the best cure for all economic issues, including equity, is strong, solid growth on both supply and demand sides)
Defense (build the strongest military, bar none, in te world today, but never gave to use it because nobody dares pick on us and we don't go around picking on them)
Foreign policy (treat your friends better that you treat your enemies, and build up an alliance of friends to stop China, like Truman did to stop Russia)
Public safety and national security (get rid of the constitutional rights abuses in patRIOT act and its progeny, legalize and tax marijuana and decriminalize other drugs)
Social issues (adopt centrist positions on abortion and gay rights, as opposed to extreme radical positions of the left in both areas)
Environment and climate change (adopt a conservation strategy, do things that make economic sense with current technology, while pushing technology forward)

So far republicans are long on criticizing democrats (and justifiably so) but short on alternative solutions. The answers are out there. Dig them out and present them.

(01-09-2024 01:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:56 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:44 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I'm really in complete agreement with you guys, I just don't want a Democrat in the White House in '25. Not trying to be two faced, but there are battles that could be fought when that one is won.

The only way a democrat is in the office in 25 is if they figure out how to steal a hell of a lot more votes.

Not if republicans don't have a plan to offer Americans to solve the problems created by this administration. Here's my outline of where I would go):

Balanced budget (without confiscatory taxes)
Border security and rational immigration policy (Canada's points-based merit system would be a good starting point, a wall where a wall works, heightened electronic and other surveillance and border patrol resources elsewhere)
Health care (republicans whiffed badly on replacing Obamacare in 2021, better have a solid plan with votes to implement it)
Welfare reform (only way to get to balaced budget without confiscatory taxes)
Infrastructure (concrete plan, not pie in the sky vaporware)
Education (like allegations about health care in 2008, a "failed" system that spends more than anybody else and delivers substandard results)
Growth (the best cure for all economic issues, including equity, is strong, solid growth on both supply and demand sides)
Defense (build the strongest military, bar none, in te world today, but never gave to use it because nobody dares pick on us and we don't go around picking on them)
Foreign policy (treat your friends better that you treat your enemies, and build up an alliance of friends to stop China, like Truman did to stop Russia)
Public safety and national security (get rid of the constitutional rights abuses in patRIOT act and its progeny, legalize and tax marijuana and decriminalize other drugs)
Social issues (adopt centrist positions on abortion and gay rights, as opposed to extreme radical positions of the left in both areas)
Environment and climate change (adopt a conservation strategy, do things that make economic sense with current technology, while pushing technology forward)

So far republicans are long on criticizing democrats (and justifiably so) but short on alternative solutions. The answers are out there. Dig them out and present them.

My guess is that President Trump was in 85% agreement with his actions and words on at least your top 10. Or 9 of your top 10, other than balance budget.


No one else running would be close to 50%....you still refuse to back or vote for this person. So aren't those really just talking points for you?

(01-09-2024 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  My guess is that President Trump was in 85% agreement with his actions and words on at least your top 10. Or 9 of your top 10, other than balance budget.
No one else running would be close to 50%....you still refuse to back or vote for this person. So aren't those really just talking points for you?

I still refuse to vote for whom? I agree with Trump on the issues. My only doubt with Trump is whether he is electable, and 2024 is an election that I don't think the USA can afford to lose to the democrats.

I do think the republicans would do well to adopt a platform along te lines that I laid out, though I'm not sure a lot of RINOs could support it. But it certainly would appeal to a lot of constituencies--middle class blue collar workers, minorities--that democrats have screwed over but republicans have not been able to attract.