Nonsense. Advocating for amendment, under the rules established in the Constitution, is in no sense arguing for mob rule.
(I hate the idea that I have to defend Ted “Theodore” Cruz even a little in order to back up Mace, but whatcha gonna do.)
Turning over the selection of the justices to the electorate is mob rule. Voters already get to elect Congress and President.
We need one branch not subject to the whims of the (mostly idiot) voters.
Survey sez … [ding] … the empty seat on SCOTUS is a good thing … look how bad their decisions are … 4-4 tie is the best possible result of any case brought in.
A Congress that can’t do anything is not able to restrict our rights … and that’s a good thing.
Looks like an air stagnation advisory is posted, can’t burn anything, flag or otherwise.
The *result *of the amendment *would *be.
You don’t have to do either.
You understand that the cases are still being decided, right? If there’s a 4-4 tie, the decision of the circuit court stands.
Your opinion is noted, and given all the weight it deserves.
No, actually I am 100% right.
Cite.
I don’t see any cite such as you describe. That’s probably because there aren’t any.
If you need me to cite the examples where the opposite was true, and various states either amended their constitutions or passed referenda because they did not wish to have the definition of marriage changed to be other than what it was, I suppose I could do that if I thought it would do any good. But since it won’tl, I guess I won’t bother.
Oh, don’t worry - when I say it, it means exactly what I intend it to mean.
Regards,
Shodan
These cases are being decided in the district courts, and these decisions stand in those particular districts. I can’t imagine very many cases reaching the circuit court, far fewer still reaching the Supreme Court. A very small percentage of all cases will reach this 4-4 deadlock. Here, the circuit court decision only temporarily stands, no precedence is set and another case can be brought to the Supreme Court.
My point is that these 4-4 ties come about with contentious issues, where the political solution is better than a judicial one … usually …
You’re looking for a cite that nothing exists? Yes, there probably aren’t any. You cannot provide a cite in the written law that marriage was ever restricted to opposite sex couples in the US, can you? Only repeated assertions that practice and custom constitute “common law”, which for you has some mystical importance that supersede all other things.
It would be easy if it existed.
Go ahead, take ten seconds and see for yourself.
How about just a single, quick, answer to a single, quick question: Who was prevented from marrying a person of the same race before Loving? The legal definition of marriage in Virginia *was *same-race, after all. So whose rights were infringed?
Mob rule, AKA democracy. Is it better to be ruled by the whims of five lawyers? Didn’t we fight a war to keep unelected people in funny robes from ruling over us?
You mean the five unelected judges who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, Citizen’s United and gave us Bush as President?
Did you complain then?
And the Constitution is the result of that war.
Sometimes, yes, we do need to be restrained.
Virtually all of these cases have to go through the circuit court to reach SCOTUS. And the circuit decisions are binding within the circuit, so a precedent is most certainly set.
Your post is misleading.
Windsor did not concern a constitutional requirement that states allow same-sex marriage. In the case that did concern that right, Obergefell (which is the case discussed in this thread), the majority addressed and expressly overruled Baker.
No … Supreme Court precedence is binding on the Circuit Court, not the other way around.
You must be misunderstanding - in the absence of SCOTUS ruling, the circuit appellate court decisions are binding on the circuit.
As I said before, only until another case is brought to the Supreme Court … a 4-4 tie isn’t the final say … the final say is only delayed.
That’s nice in theory, but it could easily be another 20 years before a similar case is before the court.
Good … it took over 200 years to ratify the 27th Amendment … we’re a People who thrive on individual liberties and freedoms … government should work slowly, making sure we get it right.
You seem to have forgotten what your argument was.
This doesn’t even make sense. If you subscribe to this then there is never a final say. Once the appellate circuit court rules, that ruling is binding on the circuit until it is overruled at some future potentially never date. So this statement:
This is false. Precedent is set. Temporary could be forever. Even SCOTUS decisions can be undone.