Sorry, friend. Given your postings thus far on the board, I just can’t find it in me to give all that much credence to your stuff.
Well, that’s interesting. The problem is that you’re judging my past posts against your own knowledge, and that’s nothing but a circular argument. When someone says something you find hard to believe, sometimes it’s because you, like, didn’t know it and now you do.
I’m tempted to go out and find the evidence and post it here to show you that I’m right, but given your incredibly cavalier dismissal of my post, I won’t. I’ll let you choose between educating yourself (start by searching on “liberal 9th circuit” and “conservative 4th circuit” - your only free hints) or simply continuing to walk through life believing I’m wrong until you embarrass yourself in front of someone who knows I’m right.
P.S. Can’t resist - also google “Senate blue slip.” Or not. It’s up to you.
Actually, I’m judging your posts by the current load of crap you’ve spewed all over the board. Google: unreliable reporter. Or not. It’s up to you.
You’re embarrassing yourself–as usual. So the local senators have input on the appointment. Big whoop. I talked about the decision. Educate yourself. No, scratch that last. It obviously isn’t working.
You’re doing it again, Monty.
I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m completely right. But I’ve already told you that the ball is in your court. You can either go educate yourself and realize I’m right and pretend you never posted this and silently remember what I taught you and wince if it ever comes up again and perhaps even learn from the experience and not dismiss the opinions of others so easily, or you can go through life thinking you’re right based on absolutely nothing until, perhaps, the subject comes up again in a different context and you are embarrassed in a much more personal way. Your choice.
Monty, rein it in. Posts, not posters. Leave the personalities out of it.
No warning issued.
ETA: That applies to both of you. And everyone else, just for good measure.
Senators have more than “input” on the decision, they have full veto power.
You still haven’t learned a thing. By now you should have figured out that a) there’s more to this than what you knew, and b) maybe I actually do know what I’m talking about. But no, you want to keep this up.
You also seem to think a bunch of tough-guy, bullying talk is going to work on me. Sorry, it doesn’t.
Saw the mod’s warning after the last post, sorry.
I’m happy to end this line of conversation.
Carry on the conversation. It can be useful. But I want you to think hard about any sentence in which the word ‘you’ is pointed at another poster. That way lies madness.
Go forth, debate.
Okay, but I doubt the other poster has anything to offer besides starting with that word…
Clearly, I was too subtle.
That’s a warning, lance strongarm. That’s an insult to another poster AND disregarding moderator instructions. I was willing to the let last one above slide since you said you put it together without seeing my earlier instruction.
This one? Not so much.
Senators don’t have a blame thing to do with the decision a judge issues from the bench.
Also, and this is what Scalia predicted, it’s really SCOTUS’s decision that is driving this. After reading Kennedy’s decision, I would have come to the same conclusion.
I’d also add that while this particular judge has considerable ties to Utah, this was a federal decision having nothing to do with Utah law, customs or whatever.
Seems to me this sentiment was posted in this very thread already.
Yes and no. While I was agreeing with you and what you said earlier, I also pointed out that this judge does, indeed, have considerable ties to Utah. He wasn’t someone plucked form outside and plopped in that state as a carpetbagger.
And now Oklahoma’s SSM amendment is ruled unconstitutional.
Holy smokes. I can smell a SCOTUS case coming.
Scalia is proven correct, at least as how the lower courts are seeing it.
Hey, no one ever said he was dumb.
Which, of course, means only that, say, an Indiana court has to recognize that what California says is a valid marriage in California, is indeed a valid marriage in California. It doesn’t mean that the Indiana court has to recognize that it’s a valid marriage in Indiana as well.
Like I said, this is totally the wrong tree to be barking up, because (a) it’s wrong, and (b) because banning SSM is better struck down as a violation of equal protection, right to privacy, and religious liberty. It’s far better to protect same-sex marriage by recognizing that outlawing it is a violation of core American values, than to do so through what amounts to a legal technicality (especially since, in this case, that particular technicality is actually wrong).