livendive

It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again. How so? The legislature crafted a law that the court found unconstitutional. Said law was struck down pending a constitutional amendment that allows it. If your state government passed a law stating that gun ownership must be restricted to .22 caliber and smaller, and the courts found this in violation of the constitution, are you suggesting that all guns should become illegal until the constitution can be amended to restrict them to .22 caliber and smaller? Blues, Dave If my state was stupid enough to pass a law like that in the first place, then th inhabitants of that state should be held to that standard, yes. It seems to me that the better court ruling would be "It is unconstitutional to restrict firearm ownership to .22 caliber and smaller, therefore, such a restriction may not be enforced until the constitution is amended to allow for it." Alternately, "It is unconstitutional to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, therefore, such a restriction may not be enforced until the constitution is amended to allow for it." Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Whatever it takes to get into Sarah Palin's pants. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Iowa, duh! Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again. How so? The legislature crafted a law that the court found unconstitutional. Said law was struck down pending a constitutional amendment that allows it. If your state government passed a law stating that gun ownership must be restricted to .22 caliber and smaller, and the courts found this in violation of the constitution, are you suggesting that all guns should become illegal until the constitution can be amended to restrict them to .22 caliber and smaller? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The definition of marriage is in the same state now that it was before the unconstitutional law was enacted. The court did not define marriage, they simply told the legislators that they would need to amend the constitution in order to enact a law that runs contrary to current equal protection provisions. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

No I am saying it shold not be in force That is why I stated that there is an argument to stop the state from marrying same sex couples At least until it passes another law aimed at fixing what the SC said was broken What the SC said was broken was the prohibition on same sex marriages. Therefore, that prohibition is not in force. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Fixed. The court struck down a law they found unconstitutional. What else are you suggesting they did? "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Alright, I'll rephrase the question. Our two major political parties rely on votes from people on either side of several issues. I doubt that many of us support all of the positions of either political party, we just usually go with the one we agree most with. If given the choice, how much would rearrange the issues your party goes after. Not much (i.e. you're fairly happy with one of the parties right now), or a lot? Right now, you would be hard-pressed to find a party that supports reproductive choice and strong 2nd amendment rights. If you're for labor unions, and against gay marriage, you have to pick which is more important to you. If you didn't have to choose the lesser of two evils and could instead make a party that agrees with you on most of these wedge issues, would it look a lot like one of the existing parties, or would it be a substantially different third party? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This they can do They did not stop here however They went beyond their job How so? Blues, Dave By making the order All they legally could do was say the law was not constitutional Nothing more is in their powers You'll have to be more specific. It's pretty much standard for courts to order remedies in support of their findings, e.g. "I find that that defendent defrauded the plaintiff and order him to pay XX restitution plus YY fees, and additionally ZZ punitive damages", or "I find you guilty and order you to serve 3 years in a state prison" etc. Who or what are you saying these guys illegally ordered? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This they can do They did not stop here however They went beyond their job How so? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So the Tea Party thing presents an interesting scenario. While obviously GOP leaning, they’ve managed to attract and repel a few factions in each of the major party’s demographics. This made me think about whether we are ready to return to a political environment consisting of more than two major parties. The growing voice for individual freedom combined with supposed small government ideals of the tea baggers suggests a maybe, however I can’t see a resounding success in pairing the religious right with libertarians. This got me thinking about how each of our major parties have defined themselves in order to stand a chance each election. Both are trying to get just over 50% of the electorate, but have a vested interest in keeping the “bad guys” big enough to be relevant so as to avoid fracture. What if we could “redistrict” the electorate? Here’s a super fast and likely flawed “map”, as I perceive it to exist today, with blue areas being mostly (D) and red mostly (R). If I were to draw my own map, where some other color (green) represented my interests, I suspect the 3 colors would be about equally represented. What would your map look like? Would you mostly pull from the red or blue areas, or would you pull about equally and form a legitimate third party? Honk if this stream of consciousness makes absolutely no sense. :-D Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If you can show me in the states laws where same sex marriage is provided for I will agree with you They can say a law is not constitutional but they can not impart their will on the people Stopping a law or voiding it is the role of the SC Not forcing what they think is the fix They do not have the power They didn't force a fix. They stopped a law that prohibited something, on the basis of the law being unconstitutional, and thereby allowing that something to occur. Legislature: "We made a law prohibiting gay marriage!" Court: "Your law is unconstitutional." Legislature: "So we have to amend the constitution in order to keep them gays apart?" Court: "Yes" Legislature: "But that will take years" Court: "Inconvenience is no excuse for bad law." They didn't force these marriages. They ruled that the law prohibiting them was unconstitutional. That's just doing their job. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I agree that the government should not have any thing to do with telling us whom we can or cannot marry but I think one step further from that is what makes religion so special that it can have a say in who marrys who. When did marriage all of a sudden become some religious topic because marriage predates Christianity. Saying it is unlawful to love someone of the same sex is no different that banning interracial marriages. I use the word "church" loosely. Whether it's the Roman Catholic church or Bob's Marriage Center, my point is that the government shouldn't care. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry according to their beliefs, so long as nobody is harmed and the vulnerable are protected. I think the closest a government should get to marriage is to presume that it will be consummated, and thus inappropriate for those who can't give knowledgeable consent. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Do you realize what you just posted? And they judged nothing They wrote law THAT is illeagal With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court. Blues, Dave They ordered marriages There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages They have written law They ordered marriages? Please list the people whom they forced to marry. Blues, Dave Do you really want to take this off subject with such a stupid assertion? And if you trully did not get the point The courted ordered the state to allow same sex marriages That IS writting law You're simply wrong. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that the law prohibiting same sex marriages ran afoul of the equal protections afforded by the state constitution. That is the function of a supreme court. If you think that is writing law, then you should have a problem with every single decision made by any supreme court anywhere on any subject. Do you think the US supreme court was writing law when ruled that segregation violated the principle of equal protection in Brown vs Kansas Board of Education? What about when they found the line item veto act of 1996 or the live poultry code to be unconstitutional? Marbury vs Madison? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Do you realize what you just posted? And they judged nothing They wrote law THAT is illeagal With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court. Blues, Dave They ordered marriages There is as of now NO law on iowa books for same sex marriages They have written law They ordered marriages? Please list the people whom they forced to marry. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Do you realize what you just posted? And they judged nothing They wrote law THAT is illeagal With the new gov we may have a person who will order the clerks to stop giving marriage licenses to same sex couples until this mess is cleared up They didn't write law. They agreed with a lower court's ruling that a particular law was unconstitutional. That is the most important function of a supreme court. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think the government should step out of marriage altogether. It's a religious issue best left to the churches and their members. Protect the vulnerable (e.g. children, the elderly, and the infirm) and otherwise get as much distance as they can from it. Telling people who they can marry is like telling them what kind of bread they can have at communion, or prosecuting non-observance of the sabbath. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Three cheers for those judges, who actually adjuticated with integrity, which is better than can be said for the Iowan voters in yesterday's elections. Good law is often unpopular, and in elections, mobs rule. The hope is that sometimes the good outweighs the evil, and I'm confident that'll eventually be the case on this subject. Getting fired is small potato's compared to the hate crimes they might have been subjected to, given the nature of those opposing them. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

+1 +2 Stupid kike! Care to call obama a nigger for the double word score? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Meh. The ballot basically asked me if I would prefer catsup or mustard on my shit sandwich. Normally in such situations, I write someone else in (I've written myself in for Congress half a dozen times or so now), this time I just voted against the one that screwed me most recently. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What gives you the right to have honor when they don't? That action does seem pretty counter-intuitive. Our incumbent (Murray) got my vote in her last two elections. This term, I finally reached the age/anger level at which we write our elected leaders. The form letter response I got from her office made it quite clear they they simply had a computer program search incoming mail for buzz words and spit out a canned response...unfortunately that response basically bragged about doing exactly what I was complaining. So, instead I voted for her opponent (Rossi), a sleazeball who's proven over the last 8 or so years that he has no qualifications for office other than a desire to win an election (ANY election) and the good sense to sue early and often. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

For some reason the transcript didn't show up in my browser, can you copy/paste it? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Yep. Voted for what I suspect is the greater evil with my senatorial vote, just because I said I would. Largely libertarian perspective on ballot measures and pretty independent nods in the election races. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

"Dishonest" is a nice way of saying "LIAR!", which is kind of funny, given the content of this post. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)