BREAKING NEWS

[Zlaxer]

http://abc7chicago.com/8-wounded-in-gre ... y/3886976/

63 people have been shot, ten fatally, since 5 p.m. Friday.

two gunman got out of a white Impala and shot four people at a block party in the 1600-block of South Avers Avenue at about 12:02 a.m. Later Sunday morning, Jahnae Patterson, 17, was killed and five other people wounded, including an 11-year-old boy in a shooting in the 1300-block of South Millard Avenue.

Obviously they need stricter gun laws.

What a fucking mess....

[Zlaxer]

http://abc7chicago.com/8-wounded-in-gre ... y/3886976/

63 people have been shot, ten fatally, since 5 p.m. Friday.

two gunman got out of a white Impala and shot four people at a block party in the 1600-block of South Avers Avenue at about 12:02 a.m. Later Sunday morning, Jahnae Patterson, 17, was killed and five other people wounded, including an 11-year-old boy in a shooting in the 1300-block of South Millard Avenue.

Obviously they need stricter gun laws.


The fact that the thugs are now shooting into large crowds means no sane White person is going to vacation/sight see, i.e., spend money, in the windy city....

Wait - I forgot to check my privilege ...I forgot that my whiteness means my world view is incorrectly shaped because I don't live in a ghetto where fatherless thugs sleigh indiscriminately....It's really the poverty you know....we all forget what a war zone Boston and San Fran were when the the Irish and Chinese moved in.

What a fucking mess....

[The Conservative]

No.

He can't.

Read more.

Then the gay marriage law is illegal.

Actually no (imho).

Look, marriage was already a law in Mass (as in other states), the courts do have the right to look at existing laws for their constitutionality. If the decide an existing law is unconstitutional, recently passed or longstanding/historical and being challenged, then if they say that said law limiting marriage to a group of people (restricting gays for instance) is unconstitutional then they can demand the language be changed to make the law abide by the constitution ("equal for all" in that case).

If, on the other hand, Mass decides "ok then, we're just going to get rid of all marriage laws" (as some libertarians might like), Mass doesn't recognize marriage, issue marriage licences at all, etc... Well, imho there's nothing unconstitutional about that as far as I know - the lack of laws would treat everyone equally and as far as I know nothing in the constitution says that a state *must* issue marriage licenses or recognize it in any legal way?

Can the court then tell Mass that they *must* have a marriage law, issue licenses, provide any special recognition for marriage, etc? Imho the answer to that should be no - if there is no law to rule unconstitutional or otherwise flawed, then there's nothing for the court to oppose. You can't that there being no law about it restricts anyone's freedom, can you?

Or say affirmative action, which the courts ruled was legal to implement... But as far as I know the court never ruled that anyone *had* to implement (as a requirement from the court), only that it was legal to do so. It was an imposition *by* the court, it was from the legislature and challenged/approved by the court.

So when it comes to DACA, which was only an executive order and never really a law passed by congress, and now not even an executive order anymore... There's nothing for the court to challenge? Now, they can look at the immigration laws and say "hey, the law that DHS is using to deport illegals is unconstitutional", but to say that the court can *require* a new law (since its not one) to be passed - sounds dangerous to me, making laws is the realm of the legislature, not the courts.

The courts are there to interpret existing law, and while they might be able to strike down some parts of an existing law as unconstitutional, or even negate a law entirely (think Jim Crow laws), the court was never meant to create new laws. That power was given to the legislative branch, for good reason - giving the power to create laws to unelected officials whose term is "for life" starts sounding an awful lot like "royal rule"...

Ummm, your first point is wrong, so the rest of what you stated is irrelevant by proxy.

When the court ruled there was no law, just a vote of the people in the last election cycle. The people said NO to gay marriage by 50 to 44%.

The LGBT community sued the state to demand it.

It went to the SC of Mass, and from there the courts were told they had so many days to either create a law allowing gay marriage or their ruling to allow it becomes law.

A classic example of creating laws from the bench scenario.

When it went to the SC of Mass it was a liberal leaning court and a lot of the reasons given were not by law or fact but opinions.

They gave 180 days to create a law, when in reality it would have taken years because it would have required two branches of the legislative to vote on it.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2003/ ... story.html

[Zlaxer]

Then the gay marriage law is illegal.

Actually no (imho).

Look, marriage was already a law in Mass (as in other states), the courts do have the right to look at existing laws for their constitutionality. If the decide an existing law is unconstitutional, recently passed or longstanding/historical and being challenged, then if they say that said law limiting marriage to a group of people (restricting gays for instance) is unconstitutional then they can demand the language be changed to make the law abide by the constitution ("equal for all" in that case).

If, on the other hand, Mass decides "ok then, we're just going to get rid of all marriage laws" (as some libertarians might like), Mass doesn't recognize marriage, issue marriage licences at all, etc... Well, imho there's nothing unconstitutional about that as far as I know - the lack of laws would treat everyone equally and as far as I know nothing in the constitution says that a state *must* issue marriage licenses or recognize it in any legal way?

Can the court then tell Mass that they *must* have a marriage law, issue licenses, provide any special recognition for marriage, etc? Imho the answer to that should be no - if there is no law to rule unconstitutional or otherwise flawed, then there's nothing for the court to oppose. You can't that there being no law about it restricts anyone's freedom, can you?

Or say affirmative action, which the courts ruled was legal to implement... But as far as I know the court never ruled that anyone *had* to implement (as a requirement from the court), only that it was legal to do so. It was an imposition *by* the court, it was from the legislature and challenged/approved by the court.

So when it comes to DACA, which was only an executive order and never really a law passed by congress, and now not even an executive order anymore... There's nothing for the court to challenge? Now, they can look at the immigration laws and say "hey, the law that DHS is using to deport illegals is unconstitutional", but to say that the court can *require* a new law (since its not one) to be passed - sounds dangerous to me, making laws is the realm of the legislature, not the courts.

The courts are there to interpret existing law, and while they might be able to strike down some parts of an existing law as unconstitutional, or even negate a law entirely (think Jim Crow laws), the court was never meant to create new laws. That power was given to the legislative branch, for good reason - giving the power to create laws to unelected officials whose term is "for life" starts sounding an awful lot like "royal rule"...

Ummm, your first point is wrong, so the rest of what you stated is irrelevant by proxy.

When the court ruled there was no law, just a vote of the people in the last election cycle. The people said NO to gay marriage by 50 to 44%.

The LGBT community sued the state to demand it.

It went to the SC of Mass, and from there the courts were told they had so many days to either create a law allowing gay marriage or their ruling to allow it becomes law.

A classic example of creating laws from the bench scenario.

When it went to the SC of Mass it was a liberal leaning court and a lot of the reasons given were not by law or fact but opinions.

They gave 180 days to create a law, when in reality it would have taken years because it would have required two branches of the legislative to vote on it.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2003/ ... story.html

Lolz TC, calm down - The MA SC made that order because existing law was found to violate both the State and US constitutions. I personally know one of the justices on the Goodridge Court - It boiled down to this -

It's unfair to grant one couple a right/privilege but to deny the same right/privilege to a second couple simply on the basis of sex. You can say that the state has a special interest in a M/F couple as they can pro-create....but the real interest is in promoting family units. M/M and F/F couples can raise children - thus, the only difference would be in promoting biologically connected families - but we have a shit-load of unwanted kids due to the DNC plantation - so it's in the state's interest to promote any type of family unit that can successfully raise kids.

And again - this is State sanctioned marriage...no one is forcing a Church to conduct gay marriages (yet) - pretty sure that one would not pass constitutional muster.


And to head off STA - I'm fine with the legalization of Polygamy - it's not my business how consenting adults want to form families....I think giving tax breaks to "groups" of people in general is statist bullshit...but if the Government wants to do that - they need to do it for everyone.....

[The Conservative]

Zlaxler: I know a judge that make the choice.

His logic: Muy Feelz!

Know what, fuck that noise. Courts cannot create laws or force laws to be created under a unrealistic timetable.

This is classic law creation from the bench. Denying it is anything else but that just shows you are nothing short of a hack.

[Zlaxer]

Zlaxler: I know a judge that make the choice.

His logic: Muy Feelz!

Know what, fuck that noise. Courts cannot create laws or force laws to be created under a unrealistic timetable.

This is classic law creation from the bench. Denying it is anything else but that just shows you are nothing short of a hack.

TC - have you actually read the opinion?

[Zlaxer]

Also, TC, if Courts didn't have the power to issue order's the the executive branch, then what would stop the executive branch from taking your land without compensation if they felt inclined to do so? If MA didn't have any laws about marriage, then the case would have been thrown out for lack of standing...

[The Conservative]

Also, TC, if Courts didn't have the power to issue order's the the executive branch, then what would stop the executive branch from taking your land without compensation if they felt inclined to do so? If MA didn't have any laws about marriage, then the case would have been thrown out for lack of standing...

It should have been thrown out. That’s the point!

We just voted not to allow gay marriage the PEOPLE voted.

The courts overruled a vote.

And yes, I did read it. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink.

[Zlaxer]

It should have been thrown out. That’s the point!

On what grounds counselor?

We just voted not to allow gay marriage the PEOPLE voted.

The courts overruled a vote.

Because the law went against the constitution.....the vote did not alter the state constitution...even then, the MA state constitution is preempted by the US Constitution...of which you need a constitutional convention to change. Don't like gay marriage, then change the U.S. Constitution to expressly prohibit it.

[The Conservative]

It should have been thrown out. That’s the point!

On what grounds counselor?

We just voted not to allow gay marriage the PEOPLE voted.

The courts overruled a vote.

Because the law went against the constitution.....the vote did not alter the state constitution...even then, the MA state constitution is preempted by the US Constitution...of which you need a constitutional convention to change. Don't like gay marriage, then change the U.S. Constitution to expressly prohibit it.

How did the long go against the constitution?

They use the excuse of the courts forcing the state to fix the jails as the reason for this law. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.