Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
In jrd's world, lawmakers and judges are robots who are unable to be influenced by personal opinions or bias, or by external political influences, into the way they do their jobs.  They are perfect.
5/11/2012 10:26 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yeah, I've gathered that. 

I assume the roads are paved with gold and parking meters dispense gumballs in your favorite flavor also.
5/11/2012 10:30 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 9:59:00 AM (view original):
So you don't think men have any bias in interpreting laws based on religious beliefs?   Are you implying that the law, and constitution, are so cut and dry, black and white, that there is no chance for different interpretations?

Just out of curiousity, what color is the sky in your world?
I'm not implying that everything is black and white. But there are few things more clear than the establishment clause. Judges may have their own religious views but they couldn't issue a ruling saying something like "same sex marriage ban upheld because the bible says its a sin."
5/11/2012 10:33 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Do you really think that's how they'd phrase it?

Why do you think Presidents assign SC judges who closely mirror their views?
5/11/2012 10:35 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
We're arguing two different points. You're saying that a judge could be influenced by his own religious beliefs. Absolutely true.

I'm saying that in the US, arguing that a law should upheld because of what is written in the bible isn't a valid legal reason.
5/11/2012 10:40 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

I've never said a law should be upheld because of the Bible.  Who are arguing with?

I think the Bible is largely a work of fiction written by men with agendas.   Why in the hell would I argue that it's an important piece of work for legislation?   On the other hand, there are people in power who think I'm a heathen because of what I believe about the Bible and use it as a guide when making decisions.

5/11/2012 10:44 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 8:29:00 AM (view original):
Of course.   The left preaches tolerance but are intolerant of differing views.

If one believes in the Bible, there is very compelling reason to deny them that right.  
You're the one that brought the bible into this discussion.
5/11/2012 10:48 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 8:29:00 AM (view original):
Of course.   The left preaches tolerance but are intolerant of differing views.

If one believes in the Bible, there is very compelling reason to deny them that right.  
You're the one that brought the bible into this discussion.

I sure did.  Because it's relevant to the decision-making process of lawmakers.

You've since agreed.

What's your point?

5/11/2012 10:51 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 8:29:00 AM (view original):
Of course.   The left preaches tolerance but are intolerant of differing views.

If one believes in the Bible, there is very compelling reason to deny them that right.  
You're the one that brought the bible into this discussion.

I sure did.  Because it's relevant to the decision-making process of lawmakers.

You've since agreed.

What's your point?

The bible isn't relevant to the legal argument against same sex marriage.

5/11/2012 11:10 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 8:29:00 AM (view original):
Of course.   The left preaches tolerance but are intolerant of differing views.

If one believes in the Bible, there is very compelling reason to deny them that right.  
You're the one that brought the bible into this discussion.

I sure did.  Because it's relevant to the decision-making process of lawmakers.

You've since agreed.

What's your point?

The bible isn't relevant to the legal argument against same sex marriage.

"Because it's relevant to the decision-making process of lawmakers."

Understand?
5/11/2012 11:15 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
I don't care about their own personal beliefs.  Do you understand that the bible isn't relevant to the legal argument against same sex marriage?
5/11/2012 11:20 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
OK, you should have said "No, I don't understand.   I only care about compelling legal reasons!!!"

JRDX world is not the same as the real world.

I get it.
5/11/2012 11:35 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
 We're arguing whether or not a law is valid.  Legal reasons are all that matter.  What the bible says on the topic is irrelevant.
5/11/2012 11:39 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't know what you're arguing.  I've been arguing whether a law will be created, passed or repealed.

The basis of your argument seems to be that everyone must be treated equally due to compelling legal reasons.  I've given you a few examples where they're not.  I've tried to explain that lawmakers will play to the whims of the people.  You don't seem to accept that.  Until you do.   Then, when I point out that you've agreed to the same principle you seemed to have argued against previously, you scream "compelling legal reasons!!" again.  

As I said, funny but sad.
5/11/2012 11:46 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I don't know what you're arguing.  I've been arguing whether a law will be created, passed or repealed.

The basis of your argument seems to be that everyone must be treated equally due to compelling legal reasons.  I've given you a few examples where they're not.  I've tried to explain that lawmakers will play to the whims of the people.  You don't seem to accept that.  Until you do.   Then, when I point out that you've agreed to the same principle you seemed to have argued against previously, you scream "compelling legal reasons!!" again.  

As I said, funny but sad.
My argument has been clear from the beginning.  The state can't restrict or take away a right from a group without a compelling legal reason.

If you want to argue that maybe some mystery judge will rule against same sex marriage based on the bible, well, I guess you can.  It is within the realm of possibility.  There's nothing anyone can do about that.  But he would have to give a legal justification for his ruling, and that is something that can be argued against.

Here is the legal definition:

In constitutional law, a method for determining the constitutionality of a statute that restricts the practice of a fundamental right or distinguishes between people due to a suspect classification. In order for the statute to be valid, there must be a compelling governmental interest that can be furthered only by the law in question. Also called compelling governmental interest test and, in the case of a state statute, the compelling state interest test.

Here is the start of the second paragraph of the federal court ruling on proposition 8:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.  There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

I've included both of these points before.  I don't think I've written anything to this point that could give you the impression that I cared about the personal beliefs of lawmakers.  I'm only concerned with the legal reasoning behind the law.  And there isn't a valid legal reason to deny same sex couple the right to marry.
5/11/2012 12:20 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...17|18|19|20|21...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.