Posted on 06/26/2013 1:19:31 PM PDT by nickcarraway
No, the state judge’s ruling would stand, because that lawsuit was brought by homosexuals. Only the suits brought by non-homosexuals lack standing.
Do you believe this? A person’s ability to see if their vote counts depends on what they do in their bedroom. If the plaintiff challenging the CA judge’s ruling said that they were sleeping with somebody of the same gender, then their vote would matter. According to supposedly-conservative “Chief Justice” John Roberts.
“Jorge El Segundo blew a serious appointment”
I disagree. I think this was Jorge El S.’s intention all along. IIRC when Roberts was nominated he had very little judicial record and even some conservative pundits (Coulter?) warned about him.
The question is, as prez did Boosh honestly ever have a problem siding with liberal Democrats? Did he ever veto legislation on constitutional grounds (such as NCLB and Medicare part D??)
Some of us here is TX knew there were issues every before W was nominated. For example, how many here are aware that as TX Governor, Jorge El S. signed off on naming a portion of SH35 the John B Coleman Memorial Highway? The late John B Coleman was an abortionist, and his son Garnet Coleman is a D in the Texas House. It may seem silly to bring up such things now, but honestly how many honest, thoughtful, committed Christian conservatives do you know who would consent to naming a highway after such a wicked man? Ye shall know them by their fruits.
We do not now have a conservative SCOTUS and probably never will.
Isn’t of all the hand wringing, self-styled conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists and traditionalists should be asking themselves, how is it in a country that is 70% Christian, the majority of our elected representatives are anti-Christian sociopaths? Why is it that most young people who graduate from the government school system have a socialist/humanist worldview?
Seems that way to me.
To say any AMERICAN CITZEN does not have standing deserves removal from the bench, an immediate charge of Treason, and the appropriate punishment.
Certainly there are cases which the black robed political morons can refuse to hear based on the MERITS of the case but to say any American Citizen does not have standing makes my blood boil.
Everything government does affects us. Maybe not directly but rest assured we are affected.
If these political hacks did not have a lifetime appointment they would be at minimum voted off the bench. As best they would suffer the supreme penalty for treason, hopefully on pay for view.
Are you so sure? Are you an employee? Are you okay with being fired for your beliefs, even if you never express them at work? Do you own a business? Are you okay with your business being boycotted, vandalized, targeted by local government for your beliefs?
Are you so sure? Are you an employee? Are you okay with being fired for your beliefs, even if you never express them at work? Do you own a business? Are you okay with your business being boycotted, vandalized, targeted by local government for your beliefs?
Back when GWB decided to appoint Roberts, but had not released his name, Fox interviewed Arlen the Specter on his way to a congessional softball game. Spineless Arlen was effusive about the “individual” who would soon be nominated. That should have been our warning shot. The Compassionate Conservative appointed the Spinless Appeaser to the cheers of the Self Serving Lizard.
Yet all republicans were for him. They wanted Bush to appoint a justice to save America....well, it didn’t work. But you say, he was the ‘ best ‘ choice. I am so sick of voting for the one just above horrible. Who is surprised? Not me. What can you do to Roberts? Do you think he cares what we think?
I don’t think so. He has a life time appointment plus he is a young man. He has plenty of time to destroy our country.
AMEN
His decisions lately are incoherent. Simply incoherent.
I’m not an expert here. I do my best to understand it. I think I understand it, but I could be wrong.
They appear to be incoherent to me too.
¡Pinche putos!
According to Roberts' majority opinion (also joined by Scalia, BTW), only the State's Governor or Attorney General has standing to defend the constitutionality of the state law.
What the POS court did today was overturn the 15th Amendment. No longer does your vote count because if someone doesn’t like the result, they can sue and disenfranchise voters.
Soapbox - meaningless; ballot box - denied; jury box - corrupted. One box left.
Listing the three worst Presidents of recent times in order:
1. Barack Obama
2. Jimmy Carter
3. George W. Bush
Want a couple more? Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. If Jeb gets in, we will have a Bush trifecta. I wonder what war he would get us involved in. The only Bush with an ounce of common sense appears to be Mama Barbara Bush.
Yes, the Court vacated the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Are Roberts and the liberals (I can’t bring myself to call them “justices”)
Scalia also joined Roberts' opinion, and he's not usually considered a "liberal."
saying that a homosexual who voted for Prop 8 is the only person with a vested interest in affirming the Constitutionality of the CA Constitution as amended by Prop 8?
No. They said only the Governor or the Attorney general of California has standing to defend the state's laws.
And probably a homosexual.
So any Governor or AG can just ignore the laws they want to, and those laws go away? Wow. An, I assume, the same goes for the president.
As dismayed as I am by these rulings, I have to look on the bright side. We all know that homosexual men love to be sexually promiscuous. By that I mean that homosexual couples are involved in cheating on their partner far more than straight married couples.
What does this mean? Well, with marriage comes the possibility of subsequent divorce. With divorce comes property settlement and alimony. My friends, I anticipate that the level of divorce among homosexual married couples, both male and female, will far exceed the divorce level of straight couples. I can just hear the howling now. As the saying goes, “Be careful what you ask for.”
The problem with Robert’s decision on “standing” is that, as I understand it, Californians were not represented by their own government (Governor and AG?) before the Circuit court on Prop 8.
That’s the problem with any decision on “technicality” as it can forever be used to get the desired outcome by groups / individuals who lost the vote, by “shopping” for state government which doesn’t truly represent the wishes of the voters.
This “legal loophole” (state government punting to the court) can be used as a strategy, especially on the important issues that affect not only that state but have national implication.
It would behoove John Roberts to understand that, clearly, the Californian people in this case have not been represented by their government, and therefore, had to resort to other means having them and their vote represented in court, i.e., that they had a clear “standing” to have their case heard. This would be a good “precedent” to strike a blow against the state government’s “misrepresentation” of the voters.
Otherwise, it will happen again... and again...
Then again, this “loophole” also presents the opportunity for USSC to punt as well, when they don’t want the people to know where they “stand” on the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.