I am not sure that is a stable position. Look at Grenell, for instance.
Relevant to the topic in so far as why the right should be accommodating to the L the B and G but militantly oppose the T everywhere at every facet and level of society.
That wasn’t directed so much at you as it is to the thread generallyBro, did you not read any of my posts? At all? Where the fuck are you getting any of that?View attachment 594
Well, let's see, I get the impression from people like Lauren Witzke, the followers of Nick Fuentes, and parts of the paleo-cons Right on this very forum.Bacle I just have to respond to this. Where do you get this idiocy about right wingers wanting to refight same sex marriage? There are a few things to unpack here. First off cultural right wing people have the right to dislike sodomy, I mean do you want us to just smile and lie and say yup we support it? Second we don't talk about fighting some democratic battle, there was never a democratic battle, whenever it was put up to a popular vote like even in California with prop 8 same sex marriage lost. It only became legal because judicial activism. So when the right wing talks about getting rid of that, those of us that are smart know that it would require a mass purge of the judicial branch, impeach almost all judges and put new ones in and putting in new loyal patriotic individuals, and then those new judges will rule the right way. Now I know this is heavily undemocratic, but it's what the liberals did. They forced a law through by judges, so why can't conservatives have judges force through their own law and enforced by government agents? I know this also fucks over with the whole judicial separation but it's already been corrupted the courts have been getting into politics and making rules that are OBVIOUSLY against judicial precedent and simply deciding based on what they think is right instead of what the law said. So why shouldn't the right adopt that tactic as well? People accepted judicial tyranny by forcing states to recognize same sex marriage, we could do the same by having the court rule same sex marriage, and abortion are illegal.
The main argument was: We need to get rid of Same sex marriage
People accepted judicial tyranny by forcing states to recognize same sex marriage, we could do the same by having the court rule same sex marriage, and abortion are illegal.
Bi, not gay; but not like I expect it to matter to people who want to shove us back in the metaphorical closet.He's gay. His opposition isn't at its core about whether it makes strategic sense or anything else, it's that he's gay and this is his #1 political issue, and even a hint that it might one day be in danger makes him freak out.
Bi, not gay; but not like I expect it to matter to people who want to shove us back in the metaphorical closet.
No, you specifically said I cared because I'm gay, you didn't use those letters.I was using it to mean "LGBT" generally, since that's what was relevant to my comment, not really which letter you happen to be.
No, you specifically said I cared because I'm gay, you didn't use those letters.
Now I don't want this convo to be about same sex marriage it's just an example. The main thing I'm talking about is how the left has a policy of judicial activism. With your argument however about gay marriage, if you look at the courts arguments they did not use that argument though. They did not bring up the full faith and credit clause of the constitution where if one state grants it other's have to recognize it. That would be different, note in such a circumstance the court should rule that states don't have to allow gays to get married in their state but if they go to another state and get married then come back then the state would have to recognize the marriage. But the court did not do that it instead made up some bullshit about marriage being a right and invented a new right out of pure air just like with abortion. Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?Well, let's see, I get the impression from people like Lauren Witzke, the followers of Nick Fuentes, and parts of the paleo-cons Right on this very forum.
As well, same-sex marriage is something that SCOTUS decided because some states were willing to make it law, but other states would not recognize those marriages and fucked over gays and lesbians who had medical or legal issues visiting or moving to those states. Conservatives want states to show reciprocity with concealed carry permits, gays and lesbians wanted thier marriages from states where it was legal recognized in the same sort of reciprocity.
Finally, same-sex marriage laws will not be reversed, and it is foolish as shit to fight to do so, for the same reason SCOTUS sided with the DACA people; once it is law, the people who affected by it have a legal expectation that to said right going forward.
I will make this as simple as possible: your whining about the SCOTUS decision as 'improper' matters not at all, and is just what amounts to massive butthurt that the world is evolving and moving on from the old world dominated by Christian dogma.Now I don't want this convo to be about same sex marriage it's just an example. The main thing I'm talking about is how the left has a policy of judicial activism. With your argument however about gay marriage, if you look at the courts arguments they did not use that argument though. They did not bring up the full faith and credit clause of the constitution where if one state grants it other's have to recognize it. That would be different, note in such a circumstance the court should rule that states don't have to allow gays to get married in their state but if they go to another state and get married then come back then the state would have to recognize the marriage. But the court did not do that it instead made up some bullshit about marriage being a right and invented a new right out of pure air just like with abortion. Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?
Now I don't want this convo to be about same sex marriage it's just an example. The main thing I'm talking about is how the left has a policy of judicial activism. With your argument however about gay marriage, if you look at the courts arguments they did not use that argument though. They did not bring up the full faith and credit clause of the constitution where if one state grants it other's have to recognize it. That would be different, note in such a circumstance the court should rule that states don't have to allow gays to get married in their state but if they go to another state and get married then come back then the state would have to recognize the marriage. But the court did not do that it instead made up some bullshit about marriage being a right and invented a new right out of pure air just like with abortion. Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?
I don't believe that. Specefically the part with a lot of cold dead bodies. The right said the same when the left was doing it's judicial activism. Yet nothing happened, most people will just bow their heads, because as long as the military and police do their job they won't rock the boat. Also why are you being mad about me bringing up how improper the decision is? This is something the right should look at and and notice. I mean you earlier in other threads were talking about how trans ideology is imposing itself on society and your space. You don't think the left will use the judicial branch to insert trans ideology into law? They've done it will all their other policies what makes you think that this is the line in the sand they won't cross, no it's nothing special it's their standard tactic they will use the courts to force it through unless conservatives wise up and either mass impeach judges, or pull an Andrew Jackson and say fuck the law we have the army and police obey us instead.I will make this as simple as possible: your whining about the SCOTUS decision as 'improper' matters not at all, and is just what amounts to massive butthurt that the world is evolving and moving on from the old world dominated by Christian dogma.
Also, I will make this explicit; no court or gov will take same-sex marriage from LGBTs, except over a lot of cold, dead bodies.
Shouldn't we then stop with having judges look through an originalist intent, and just ask them about their polices and go for partisan hacks, hell even go put actual priests as supreme court judges.I mean the big reason we should try to do things through the courts is that it's a losing game. Most judges appointed by republicans have a philosophy of ruling to the minimal extent possible, to tailoring their rulings to that it overturns the least law possible, and deferring totally to the legislature on matters of policy (with the possible exception of when something is anti-corporate). This is to the point where that's literally what a "conservative judge" means. Also, with notable exceptions (Thomas, Alito) they start drifting more and more left over time. On the other hand most judges appointed by the left explicitly make what they think is good policy part of their judicial philosophy.
Given how long appointments last, this isn't changing any time soon. We've been trying to appoint the right judges for decades to overturn Roe. It hasn't worked.
Trump should have just said "Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it." We won't get anywhere on Roe or similar until we have someone willing to take that stand.
LGBTs won't bow thier heads, not now that we have same-sex marriage and the legal equality it brings. As well, I think a lot of straight folks who support LGBTs will not take kindly to thier friends rights being stripped away by puritanical assholes, so it won't just be LGBTs up in arms over it.I don't believe that. Specefically the part with a lot of cold dead bodies. The right said the same when the left was doing it's judicial activism. Yet nothing happened, most people will just bow their heads, because as long as the military and police do their job they won't rock the boat. Also why are you being mad about me bringing up how improper the decision is? This is something the right should look at and and notice. I mean you earlier in other threads were talking about how trans ideology is imposing itself on society and your space. You don't think the left will use the judicial branch to insert trans ideology into law? They've done it will all their other policies what makes you think that this is the line in the sand they won't cross, no it's nothing special it's their standard tactic they will use the courts to force it through unless conservatives wise up and either mass impeach judges, or pull an Andrew Jackson and say fuck the law we have the army and police obey us instead.
Shouldn't we then stop with having judges look through an originalist intent, and just ask them about their polices and go for partisan hacks, hell even go put actual priests as supreme court judges.
I know my writing is bad so maybe you don’t understand what I’m saying it’s either that or you are willfully blind. The lgbt issue is not the end all be all. It’s literally a smoke screen. It’s liberal judicial ideology that is a threat to the republic. Saying that the constitution says something when it doesn’t well that’s not a far step from saying that something in the constitution that is there is not there actually. So sure be happy that the judges made gay marriage and trans rights. I wonder how happy you’ll be when they interpret the 2nd amendment not apply to weapons but instead revolutionary war era re-enactments or something like that.LGBTs won't bow thier heads, not now that we have same-sex marriage and the legal equality it brings. As well, I think a lot of straight folks who support LGBTs will not take kindly to thier friends rights being stripped away by puritanical assholes, so it won't just be LGBTs up in arms over it.
I may not like the trans ideology, but I'll put up with trannies if the other option is siding with people who want to roll back same-sex marriage.