1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Jun 26, 2015.

  1. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    None of which changes the fact that what we have is a SCOTUS with at least four people who rule in the following manner: When they like the state law, then state laws trump federal laws; when they like the federal law better than a state's law, then the federal law trumps state laws.

    They can cloak their politics all they want with claims of following the Constitution, what they've done is make the supposed non-political arm of the three branches of government just as political as the other two. They rule based on their political wishes, not on what is or isn't Constitutional. It's how you "find" a "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade but somehow can't find "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," despite it being expressly said.
     
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    I understand the two cases perfectly. When the politics of Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer make them prefer an outcome, they'll twist themselves into pretzels and make statements that defy logic to reach that preferred outcome.
     
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Your second statement completely contradicts your first statement in this post, Tony. Nobody defies logic and twists themselves into pretzels for political reasons like you do.

    You accused Supreme Court Justices of being illiterate. 'Nuff said.
     
  4. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    That the Supreme Court is acting like a political body is hardly news.
     
    Hokie_pokie likes this.
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I
    Doesn't it also expressly say that said arms are to be kept in the interest of maintaining a well-regulated militia?
     
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Yep. But what it doesn't say is that so long as a well-regulated militia is necessary, the right to keep/bear arms is not to be infringed.
     
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    schiezainc likes this.
  8. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    That's what your wife said.
     
    Hokie_pokie likes this.
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Well, some of her friends have made some bad dating choices. Lucky for her, she has me, so that isn't an issue.
     
  12. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page