RedBook
EscortsPremier Adult Entertainment Community Home | Ads | Message Board myredbok
Subject: "To all who think the supremes went againt the will of the vo" Archived thread - Read only
    Previous Topic | Next Topic
printerPrinter Friendly view    
Conferences > Special Interest > Community Hall > Topic #34786
Reading Topic #34786

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 15-May-08, 07:51 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
"To all who think the supremes went againt the will of the vo"
 
To hell with ya..

It appears that your wishes were against those involved with this vote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Constitution

What about their will, where the constitution granted equally, all civil rights to ALL citizens of the state.

Period.

If your RELIGION doesnt recognize it, fine, but down at the courthouse, the STATE, does.

Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

 
Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

JPB123 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
5643 posts, 13 feedbacks, 14 points		 15-May-08, 07:58 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to JPB123 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #0
 
"If your RELIGION doesnt recognize it, fine, but down at the courthouse, the STATE, does."

Exactly...This decision does not force religious organizations to perform same sex marriage or to even recognize them...

...JPB123

Give GW Bush a 3rd term! Vote for McCain...

  Alert Top

RoyalJim click here to view user rating
Charter Member
2293 posts, 13 feedbacks, 21 points		 15-May-08, 08:32 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to RoyalJim Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #0
 
   >To hell with ya..
>
>It appears that your wishes were against those involved with
>this vote.
>

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Are you inferring that the majority should not rule?

  Alert Top

ChumpChange click here to view user rating
Charter Member
4901 posts, 9 feedbacks, 10 points		 15-May-08, 08:56 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to ChumpChange Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #2
 
   LAST EDITED ON 15-May-08 AT 09:02 PM (PST)
 
the current thinking on here is that the minority ( < 5% gays) trump the majority (95%) in the gay marriage sweepstakes.

This is not MINORITY RIGHTS; its the legalization/promotion of two pervs butt-fucking.

Religion can be factored out to strip this down to its bare legal issues; which is: judges running wild with their fascist ego-farts invalidating what the people want.

These judges are wittingly or un-wittingly 'useful idiots'; in the Leninist sense.

Cc


  Alert Top

Hardballer click here to view user rating
Charter Member
6450 posts, 55 feedbacks, 93 points		 15-May-08, 08:57 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Hardballer Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #3
 
   Define "pervs" please, CC.

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 15-May-08, 09:01 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
6. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #3
 
>the current thinking on here is that the minority ( < 5%
>gays) trump the majority (96%) in the gay marriage
>sweepstakes.
>
>This is not MINORITY RIGHTS; its the legalization/promotion
>of two pervs butt-fucking.
---
Even if you were right, how does this threaten you?

Not that youre right..I hear we have real lawyers who decided that.

Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

ChumpChange click here to view user rating
Charter Member
4901 posts, 9 feedbacks, 10 points		 15-May-08, 09:11 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to ChumpChange Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #6
 
   we are all threatened by the trends toward a Communistic society; already we have the NEA reducing our schools to Maoist conditioning factories and the courts taking private citizen's property through the perversion of the eminent domain rules.

This attempt to re-define the family is an old, old plank in the Communist Manifesto.
Why don't you study it-don't take my word for it.

Perhaps you are a radical leftist; that's your right under our system of laws...but i don't get that there is any real knowledge in your intellectual bank; just a narcissistic media-fucked sheep.

Cc

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 15-May-08, 09:32 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
9. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #8
 
>This attempt to re-define the family is an old, old plank in
>the Communist Manifesto.
>Why don't you study it-don't take my word for it.
---
Nobody is redefining family, just reinforcing that the California Constitution guarantees the same civil rights to everyone.


Youre making it a familiy issue..not the courts, or the constitution.

Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

1Freeman click here to view user rating
Member since 28-Jun-04
5282 posts, 25 feedbacks, 40 points		 21-May-08, 08:26 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to 1Freeman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #9
 
"Nobody is redefining family, just reinforcing that the California Constitution guarantees the same civil rights to everyone."

Mind you I usually only look for flames and what not lately, but I thankfully I saw this post. IMHO you get the post of the week. You NAILED it.
Peace,
Juan Freeman

There is but one evil, war. All the other proclaimed evils such as hate, greed, discrimination, and jealousy are only sub-categories of it. - – Jose Barreiro

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 21-May-08, 08:59 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
25. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #24
 
Everytime I hear a whiner about how the judges went activist, and against the voters will in prop22, all I see in my mind is this fellow, and what he stood for.



http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/User_files/c5p9w6o763p253p7.jpg

=====
...goddamn disgrace. Made a travesty of the entire evenin'...what I wouldn't give to get my hands on those agitators. Whoever heard a such behavior. Even among culluds. Or mulattos, maybe - I suspect some miscegenation in their heritage...
=====

Thats also what I hear....when I read the distractions from the real issues on why Prop22 was shot down.

Personality traits inform others.


  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 15-May-08, 08:57 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
4. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #2
 
>>To hell with ya..
>>
>>It appears that your wishes were against those involved with
>>this vote.
>>
>
>I'm not sure I understand your logic. Are you inferring
>that the majority should not rule?
---
The majority did rule.

Long before Prop22.


Perspective would go a long way with you...not to mention simple study. A proposition cannot rewrite the constitution, only an amendment can.

Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

RoyalJim click here to view user rating
Charter Member
2293 posts, 13 feedbacks, 21 points		 15-May-08, 09:06 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to RoyalJim Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #4
 
   "Perspective would go a long way with you...not to mention simple study. "

That's why I asked you ..... and am trying to understand your posting.. don't get on me for that...

"A proposition cannot rewrite the constitution, only an amendment can."

And which one says what/.....????

  Alert Top

Duwop click here to view user rating
Charter Member
4193 posts, 20 feedbacks, 33 points		 15-May-08, 10:18 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Duwop Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #7
 
>"Perspective would go a long way with you...not to mention
>simple study. "
>
>That's why I asked you ..... and am trying to understand
>your posting.. don't get on me for that...
>
>"A proposition cannot rewrite the constitution, only an
>amendment can."
>
>And which one says what/.....????

You seriously think that a law or proposition on anything modifies a constitution? Seriously?

RJ. so full of meaningless off point questions, so lacking in facts or knowledge.

RJ, ever hear of the term "passive agressive" ? Look it up, your picture's there.

  Alert Top

dman click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3066 posts, 12 feedbacks, 21 points		 15-May-08, 10:47 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to dman Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #10
 
   LAST EDITED ON 15-May-08 AT 10:47 PM (PST)
 
The California Supreme Court did in fact go against the will of the people. So did the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. Sometimes, majorities are irretrievably WRONG.

That's what Judicial Review is for - to overrule the tyranny of a despotic majority.

  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
16425 posts, 57 feedbacks, 88 points		 16-May-08, 11:22 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #11
 
Exactly.

For everyone whining about "activist judges" hijacking the will of the people....I guess they all forgot the purpose of the three separate branches of government, and the concept of checks and balances.

Maybe that's why bush has won twice...right now, the people are in a particularly totalitarian mood.

Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

RoyalJim click here to view user rating
Charter Member
2293 posts, 13 feedbacks, 21 points		 19-May-08, 03:13 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to RoyalJim Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #10
 
   >>"Perspective would go a long way with you...not to mention
>>simple study. "
>>
>>That's why I asked you ..... and am trying to understand
>>your posting.. don't get on me for that...
>>
>>"A proposition cannot rewrite the constitution, only an
>>amendment can."
>>
>>And which one says what/.....????
>
>You seriously think that a law or proposition on anything
>modifies a constitution? Seriously?
>

Ummmnn, I didn't say that. I indicated that an amendment COULD modify the constitution, WHICH IT CAN. SO WTF are YOU talking about?

>RJ. so full of meaningless off point questions, so lacking
>in facts or knowledge.

Like your post above? Not only meaningless, but entirely fictional and unrelated to anything in this thread.

>
>RJ, ever hear of the term "passive agressive" ? Look it up,
>your picture's there.

You seem to be mastering the aggressive part. Normally when people post about things they can't understand in an aggressive mode, it shines a very clear light on their own inadequacies. See the light?


  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
16425 posts, 57 feedbacks, 88 points		 16-May-08, 11:20 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #2
 
he might be implying it, but he certainly is not inferring it.

But that question indicates a lack of understanding of what "majority rule" means in a modern society.

Majority rule certainly does not mean that the judges vote according to what they believe the people want them to vote. That's what elected legislators do, to some extent.


Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

TitusHooker click here to view user rating
Member since 27-Sep-07
282 posts, 4 feedbacks, 7 points		 16-May-08, 05:16 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to TitusHooker Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #0
 
LAST EDITED ON 16-May-08 AT 05:19 PM (PST)
 
I agree that the 'supremes' had their say and it upholds the State, however, if the voters want to overide the 'Supremes' I think they can do so. And I think they just might in November. See here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18

----------

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at
a general election the question whether to call a convention to
revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question,
within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention.
Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from
districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

(I especially like this section)

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

---------------

Those who like tradition just may decide to have their way with this. Oh yea, and someone said the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, well, not yet but if this goes all the way, SCOTUS very well may have the last say.

a-gi-yo-si doya, Gun Rod

  Alert Top

tuneup
Member since 26-Apr-08
82 posts, Rate this user		 19-May-08, 05:22 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to tuneup Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #14
 
   The court is playing Politics,, Plain and Simple.

They sided with the executive wanna be in the form of SF Mayor for political purposes.

I say Let's Rock the HOUSE. Let california write legislation updating family statues and exclude the courts ability for CONSTITUTION review.

Then the court can take up the matter and suck on its' own thumb for awhile.

The court has all to often has relied on case law instead of Legislative Statues that have clear meaning. Then the try and help the executive by passing judgement on CONSTITUTION basis.

Let us rock the foundation of the court and see what shakes out!

  Alert Top

TitusHooker click here to view user rating
Member since 27-Sep-07
282 posts, 4 feedbacks, 7 points		 20-May-08, 04:25 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to TitusHooker Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #16
 
Works for me!

a-gi-yo-si doya, Gun Rod

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 20-May-08, 05:01 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
18. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #17
 
>Works for me!
---
If you really believe that the court is playing to politics, youre both weak, and to your own ends, youre unwilling to grasp the issue at hand.

Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

frankie5angels click here to view user rating
Member since 2-Mar-05
1825 posts, 25 feedbacks, 36 points		 21-May-08, 10:46 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to frankie5angels Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #18
 
Open your eyes. The vast majority of judges are appointed. Appointed by POLITICANS. And, in almost every case, they're appointed by members of their own political party. Judge's play to politics ALL the time. If you don't think so, you need to get back on the turnip truck.

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 21-May-08, 10:56 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
20. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #19
 
>Open your eyes. The vast majority of judges are appointed.
>Appointed by POLITICANS. And, in almost every case, they're
>appointed by members of their own political party. Judge's
>play to politics ALL the time. If you don't think so, you
>need to get back on the turnip truck.
---
You are 100% correct.

But you are 100% wrong that just because of that, Judges rule along party lines. Face it..only a VERY small section of society is politically biased, blinded..and as ignorant as yourself and many others with this tired bullshit of "judges rule on politics".


In this case, its 100% based on what the Constitution of the State of California says.


So far, none of you gay and race haters (cant be one without being the other in this case) has bothered to tell us why rejecting the 2000 law in light of what the CONSTITUTION says, was wrong.


It seems that you are completely ignoring the actual merits of the case..as well as it's historical legal precedent WRT interracial marriage, arent you?


Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

frankie5angels click here to view user rating
Member since 2-Mar-05
1825 posts, 25 feedbacks, 36 points		 21-May-08, 11:57 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to frankie5angels Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
21. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #20
 
Exactly the type of a response I would expect from a know-it-all facist like yourself. I would appreciate it if you would point out where in my post I commented on the merits of the issue of gay marriage. You can't do it can you, because I didn't. In fact, lame brain, you don't know how I feel on the issue. But that doesn't stop you from bloviating away, because I had the unmitigated gaul to question your ridiculous assertion that judges don't play politics.

Rather than admit you were wrong, you have to launch an attack claiming that I'm "biased, blinded...and ignorant" and apparently a card carrying member of the "gay and race haters" club. All of a sudden you're RB's answer to the Amazing Kriskin. Well, run this up your anal canal: I don't give a shit about the issue. If they want to get married, fine. The gay community can then learn the joys of divorce. Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. Just be done with it and move on to some issues which affect more than 2% of the population.

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15230 posts, 45 feedbacks, 51 points		 21-May-08, 05:59 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
22. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #21
 
Lets see..youre on about how the courts are politically motivated, and how this decision is an example of that..and youre somehow NOT oblivious to the fact that this wasnt a political decision at all?


Good god dude..

Personality traits inform others.

  Alert Top

tuneup
Member since 26-Apr-08
82 posts, Rate this user		 21-May-08, 07:02 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to tuneup Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
23. "RE: To all who think the supremes went againt the will of th"
In response to message #22
 
   Lets see..youre on about how the courts are politically motivated

You are are a hit & run

Ya right The courts opinion gave drift back & forth like so....

Sometime we think so, some time not.. it depends on the wind..
NOT oblivious to the fact that this wasnt a political decision at all?

fart!


  Alert Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
  ©2008 myRedBook S.A. reviews | metasearch   |   top | help | faq | links | terms of use