That's a good analysis, but neither the TXSupCT nor SCOTUS would see it that way. They would reason that no gender discrimination exist because neither sex is able to do what the other is not.
?? Women can marry men, but under this law, men certainly cannot marry men, and the reverse also hold true. Sorry to drive the proverbial truck through the truck-sized hole in your argument...They would reason that no gender discrimination exist because neither sex is able to do what the other is not.
That would be the argument to use for sure.
SCOTUS would see things differently, however. Their logic would be that the same-sex ban treats equally men and women. Men cannot marry members of the same sex and woman cannot marry members of the same sex. It's all in the wording you sly dog
Yes it is you re . the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!
yeah theres something called the cons ution. the last amendment limiting personal freedom was prohibition, that turned out well didn't it?Yes it is you re . the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Cons ution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
http://www.house.gov/Cons ution/Cons ution.html
You might want to read this and try that last bit again...
...and when you call somebody a moron, you might want to make sure that your spelling is correct and that your grammar is correct. When you can't do either, you're a moron.
^I type slow. So when i do finish i don't bother checking spelling or grammar. A moron also just pulls out of thin air like yourself and declares himself intellectually superior.
Yes it is you re . the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!
Heh, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
I'm sorry. I meant "checks and balances". Having a typo is one thing. Calling some one a dolt like OH gee! and not knowing yourself what your talking about is another. But ofcourse your to busy being Oh Gee's unpaid legal attorney. Get a life.
cat's urine glows under a blacklight.
^^Go to sleep.
That is the most sensible thing you have said all night.
I have some homework to do in the morning.
Thanks and I hope the random facts from Random Guy were randomly interesting.
Spider monkeys like banana daiquiris.
read the ing the thread before you start calling people out idiot. I said that classifying the so-called protected or suspect classes for purposes of scrutinizing EPC claims is not within the scope of the legislature. The Supreme Court has its own formula for determining which groups of people qualify for strict (or any other type of) scrutiny.
This is why we have to limit judicial activism. It cannot be the sole province of the court to determine who the protected and suspect classes are.
Before you call out gtown, think about what he said. We do need checks and balances and this judicial activism has to stop.
gtown, I commend you for your wisdom. You words ring as true right now as they did 5 minutes ago when I first read your post.
________
AnitaLX live
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:52 PM.
wouldn't checks and balances mean that the legislature (one co-equal branch) doesn't tell the judiciary (another co-equal branch) how to perform purely judicial tasks, such as interpreting the law and creating tests to scrutinize cons utional claims?
Oh, Gee! such an innocent, naive young man.
What "checks and balances" really means is that the Republican-led Legislative Branch and the Republican-led Administrative Branch should get to control the Judicial Branch, as well, in order to keep their activism in check.
________
Live sex webshows
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:52 PM.
Damn, Peabody. You just took it to a whole new level. Have you been studying under Gtown?
You see here dip . I know the formula the supreme court uses to interpret as to wether a group is protected or not. That doesn't prove your point. The legislature can interpret what are protected classes when they draft laws for affirmative action and other civil right matters.
Evidence of Cons utional scholarship at its finest.
^^really? i'll give you an example. Asian minorities have had a terrible persecutory past. SOmehow the legislature has chosen to remove them from "protected class" status from affirmative action laws for financial aid.
That's a load of crap. le VII and other anti-discrimination laws (note: statutory enactments and not instances of Cons utional construction) make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. Asian minorities are certainly within the protected class who cannot be illegally discriminated against. Try again.
^You obviously have no clue about affirmative action. Affirmative action only helps protected classes. It can discriminate whites and jews from it's priveliges solely because they are a very affluent class. This is what i was talking about when the congressional branch interprets what is a protected class and what is not.
NEXT!!!!
@ Gtown trying to argue law with a ing lawyer!!!
Priceless!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
