Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Freepers surrender on gay marriage

In an instructive example of how even the zealous follow public opinion come election time, Freepers (following Ted Cruz, natch) discuss how they'll ban gay marriage later, when they get around to it. For now, it's all about abortion, low taxes, deporting illegals and guns everywhere!

Buckeye McFrog suddenly realizes that there's no point in tilting at this particular windmill:
Thanks to Anthony Kennedy, doing anything about this, IF it is even possible, is going to be a years-long slog.

Meanwhile the country is about to go bankrupt and the society is about do descent into balkanized chaos.

You’ve gotta do triage someplace. This issue, as important as it is, won’t make the Top 3.
Blood of Tyrants actually uses the term:
Until the Supreme Court is shifted right by the replacement of one or more of the liberal judges with conservative ones, to fight gay marriage is tilting at windmills.
Except almost everything Freepers want is tilting at windmills...

Dilbert San Diego also discovers political viability:
The Supreme Court decision will not be overturned anytime soon by a constitutional amendment or another Supreme Court decision overturning their original decision.

So you have to ask , how much political capital should be expended. I oppose homosexual marriage as much as anyone here, but have wondered, what comes next after the Supreme Court has ruled. Clearly the legal landscape on this issue has fundamentally changed.
Uncle Miltie would like to attack the original poster's sign-up date.
Welcome, newbie. For which candidate are you shilling?
But Uncle Miltie is totally into the topic:
ISIS, Jobs, 2nd Amendment, Budget, Taxes, National Security, Eliminating Departments,

man, I can think of a dozen things that should be in the Top Three.
TribalPrincess2U knows the key is the thing that makes her afraid:
Terrorists first, then economy. All those other unimportant things the left is trying to push on us can just wait.
taildragger thinks a flat tax will solve everything!
I said it years ago we didn't need gay marriage but a flat tax to treat gays fairly under the code ( without getting into the weeds I saw it 1st hand ), and no one here got it. Now if Ted gets aboard a flat tax that is a ground up redo of the tax code given many gays are entrepreneurs that also face a 35% business tax, bringing that down to the same flat rate ( or eliminating it entirely ) would benefit us all.
NELSON111 has a whole list with guns and 'The Economy' above marriage:
it's not top three. 1) Terrorism...2) Illegal Immigration...3) Gun rights 4) The Economy and run-away spending...5) Traditional Marriage.'s not top three. Stopping the tyranny of big government would stop same-sex marriage.
xzins seems to think abortion isn't a Constitutional issue. Sadly, he's not wrong at the moment.
My top 3 would be


Those do not require an immediate replacement of scotus justices
The Final Harvest also puts terrorism number one:
Terrorism, gun rights and stopping the illegal invasion are more urgent issues.
Sad little greene66 shows up to proclaim that he'll never compromises in the face of reality:
I frankly don’t expect any politician to make it a priority. It’s a testament to what a depraved, morally rotted populace we now have, which is a fact I can no longer argue against.

And as long as the sick, evil degeneracy of faggot-marriage is legally recognizied and culturally celebrated with any kind of legitimacy in this country, America itself can truly go burn in hell, as far as I care.
i_robot73 is all about the Constitutional crisis:
“...the Supreme Court has ruled.”

Let THEM enforce it = no ‘political capital’ (I detest that term. What a cheap way to weasel out of enforcing and adhering to the Constitution) required.
Except it's not clear what Constitution i_robot73 is reading...
Congress has the capacity to tell SCOTUS to eat its hat when it comes to ANY topic.

To lay one’s hope SOLELY at the feet of the President is disingenuous at best.

Congress should be bitch slapping these punks left and right; abolish all other federal courts (Article III, Section 1), and then start over.
Twotone thinks impeaching Justices is super easy:
The Supreme Court should be forcibly shifted to the right by impeaching Justices who make rulings clearly against the meaning of the constitution.

As much as I’d love to see Ted Cruz as president, I’d almost rather he be the first pick of a Trump administration to replace Ruth Buzzy-Ginsburg. Next would be Mike Lee to replace an impeached John Roberts.


  1. To be fair to irobot73, I suppose you could defund the entire federal judiciary

    Kansas is currently skirting the edges of a constitutional crisis regarding a provision in the state budget that defunds the entire state judiciary in the event that any court of the State holds its statewide education funding law in violation of the State constitution

    A trial court _did_ make such a holding, at which point the State successfully begged the court to stay its order, because otherwise there would have been _no way for the State to appeal_, because the appellate court would have been shut down

  2. I read your post three times, Anonymous, but I don't think I understand -- can you restate this in simpler terms? I haven't heard about this, and I don't exactly understand the issue or its consequences. Thanks.

    1. It's a crazy separation of powers fight

      OK, so the Kansas Supreme Court has been aggressively interpreting a provision of the Kansas Constitution to require more equitable school funding between cities/suburbs/rural areas than the legislature is into providing

      Legislature passes a budget bill that includes school funding and funding for the Kansas state courts. A provision of the bill says that in the event that any Kansas court holds that the school funding provision is in violation of the Kansas or federal Constitutions, funding for all Kansas courts drops to zero. This is pretty nakedly an effort by the legislature and governor to intimidate the judges: "don't hold this school funding formula unconstitutional, or you don't get paid and your jobs become a nightmare."

      Most state courts have interpreted their constitutions so that this kind of direct attempt to control the outcomes of judicial cases is unconstitutional as interfering with the inherent authority of the courts under the state constitutions -- separation of powers stuff. But, the legislature also included what's known as a non-severability provision in the bill, saying that the bill wouldn't have been passed _at all_ if it didn't include the judicial defunding provision. In general, courts apply these non-severability provisions to mean that if the non-severable provision is held unconstitutional, the entire bill is unenforceable.

      So in short: the legislature says "Stop it with the aggressive constitutional rulings on school funding, right now, or we drop the atom bomb and you don't get paid. If you say that not paying you is unconstitutional, then _nobody_ gets paid."

      So activists sue, and a trial court judge bites the bullet, holding the school funding formula unconstitutional. Per law, that means no more state money can be used for the operation of the State courts. But the State wants to appeal from the trial court's ruling -- which it can't do if the atom bomb just dropped, because the appellate court wouldn't be open. So it gets the trial court to stay (delay) _enforcement_ of its ruling pending appeal, which I guess per the language of the budget statute permits funding for the judicial branch to continue.

      There is also what is known as a "nonseverability" provision stating that the legislature would not have adopted the bill as a whole if the court defunding provision were not included.