Posted on 10/10/2014 3:12:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
Edited on 10/10/2014 3:33:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court on Friday night allowed same-sex marriages to begin in Idaho, ending a dramatic week in which the right of gay couples to marry expanded dramatically across the nation.
In a one-sentence order, the justices denied a request from Idaho Gov. C.L. Butch Otter (R) to delay the unions so the state could continue its appeals. The court gave no reason for the action nor were there recorded dissents.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I was just saying I dont think anybody knew it was going to turn out this way, that was my only point...I wasn`t defending Roberts, no not at all...as far as I am concerned abortion/gay marriage trumps all other issues, so I am sick about it all.
I was really just saying George Bush is not to blame IMO
Many Hollywood celeb straights have gayed it up. It’s rampant in the entertainment industry. I hear politicians are just about the same...
Many Hollywood celeb straights have gayed it up. It’s rampant in the entertainment industry. I hear politicians are just about the same...
Another thought...
Maybe the states could issue marriage licenses and have it recorded, to church married couples only after child birth.
I don’t disagree with you. Those are the terms I would describe Roberts in, in that day.
You and I don’t have the resources available to vet a guy like Roberts the way the President does. At least I believe that’s an accurate take on it. So I don’t think it’s out of line for us to see him one way, when he could have been far more another way.
Let’s also recall we were bucking a significant ‘back Bush at any cost’ movement here in those days. Gosh, he couldn’t do anything wrong at all. In that environment, I think some folks tried to be somewhat accommodating too.
If there hadn’t been some real problems with some of his trial balloons, this wouldn’t loom quite so large.
That Obamacare ruling was vaporware.
This guy isn’t well grounded at all. That must have surfaced somewhere along the line in this guy’s career.
I don’t remember the comparative of Alito vs Roberts now. You could be right.
Absolutely.... The bad stuff that Roberts gave us recently, was not something that anybody expected the day he was appointed to the High Court, I remember celebrating at the time, I personally cant recall anybody predicting this at the time...if you catch my drift.
The most recent historical precedent is the Supreme Court's desegregation rulings in the 1950s. (No, I am not comparing gay marriage to desegregation, just pointing to the last time states tried to defy SCOTUS rulings.)
When a federal court ordered Little Rock Central High School desegregated, Gov. Faubus said the state wouldn't comply. The federal court sent U.S. Marshals to enforce its order; Faubus called out the National Guard to block them. President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard, relying on the provision in the Constitution that the President can federalize state militias when needed "to execute the Laws of the Union." Eisenhower was afraid the Arkansas Guard wouldn't obey federal orders, so he also called up units of the regular U.S. Army to stand by if necessary, but the Guard obeyed the federal orders and escorted black students into Central High.
So the short answer to your question is that there is very little a state can do to fight a federal court order if the President is prepared to use military force to enforce the court's order.
SCOTUS was generally responsible for igniting the first Civil War and were never punished for their treason and stupidity.
In 2014, we have more lampposts.
I catch your drift. I’ve gotten exactly what I’ve expected from Roberts. You are just whining that some decisions didn’t go your way.
“Obama and Holder must really have the goods on him.”
And all of the do nothing Congressional Republican’s too, as they stand by watching our Republic as it’s transformed into a Despotic Dictatorship.
Thanks, LL.
I was afraid that was the answer. But what if say, 38 states banded together and said no to the feds?
I think that’s a reasonable comment. The question is, is there a way to approach this that meets bare Constitutional muster? These days, these idiots, I’m not convinced.
We are a Judeo-Christian society. I don’t think anyone ever thought 2% of our society would be able to wrestle marriage away from heterosexuals. They didn’t expect to see it being sold along with the full LGBT agenda either. Next we’ll see “Howard” demanding he be able to wear his transgender garb to school to teach a class. Somewhere along the line, the train has come off the rails.
Is it a double standard to seal marriage only for heterosexuals? Perhaps so, but civlization itself is reliant on the best solid family values.
A male and female role model being necessary for the development of healthy children to adults, it would seem a given that male male and female female parings would fail the societal weighted merits test.
Can that be written in some way? I don’t know. If I were a supreme, I’d find a way to back the sanctity of marriage even if I had to cross a few lines to do it.
This is a very important issue, because it’s a gateway movement. We can see where this is headed. We can see how our school curriculum has been breached. We know certain milestones are ahead, and are seeking to avoid them.
Maybe I’m nuts, but I don’t think a 1960s Supreme Court would have had a tough problem finding Homosexual parity with Heterosexuals as it relates to marriage, to be too tough a problem to sort out.
Well, I am generally opposed to succession, but in this instance I certainly understand it. I want to see a broad coalition of states simply tell the Supreme Court to F. O.
California even got this one right at the polls.
Explain that Justice Roberts. If he is this outside the bounds of reality here, he needs to step down, and like minded individuals with him.
That would be my take, but it’s only a gut feeling right now.
Well, it could be that ideologues have tipped the court before we realized it.
I tend to think in those terms. Who knows.
Well, he would be at least the third to know. LOL
Look, I don’t want to give you a hard time over it.
At the very best, his team give him a bad name. It is still his watch, and he should have had a better team in place, if that indeed resulted in Roberts being appointed.
I’m not going to give Obama any slack on his watch. I don’t think it should be any different when it comes to Bush.
Take care.
Lots of reasons this guy is being blackmailed. What pisses me off is obviously Bush didn’t investigate his pick very good or he would have known about Roberts’ skeletons. Or, Bush knew exactly what he was getting.
BINGO! All the people attacking RINOS for appointing Roberts now are full of it.
I recall Laura Ingraham salivating over the great John Roberts.
Personally I never thought much of him and was revolted by all the excessive praise. The worst was conservative hosts saying he was a “courageous” man.
Roberts parlayed a clerkship for Chief Justice Rehnquist into a cushy partnership at a big firm. If you know big firm lawyers you would have known they are country club wannabee twits.
But no one thought that Rehnquist’s clerk would be a liberal. He’s a just a self important elitist weasel and yes it looks like he did an illegal adoption and they have that on him.
That’s what I’ve been saying. Surely there is a governor somewhere who is clean enough to not worry about being blackmailed who will stand up and say “I agree with Andrew Jackson. Roberts has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”
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.