Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

SCOTUS
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=80088		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Nas [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  SCOTUS
Great day for equal rights.
Author:  denisdman [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
I am with you. Time to put this issue to bed. Live and let live.
Author:  Tall Midget [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Nas wrote:
Great day for equal rights.


Did you miss yesterday's news?
Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:
Great day for equal rights.


Did you miss yesterday's news?


No shit.

Talk about a make up call.
Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:
Great day for equal rights.


Did you miss yesterday's news?

This.
Author:  Nas [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Tall Midget wrote:
Nas wrote:
Great day for equal rights.


Did you miss yesterday's news?


I didn't.
Author:  pittmike [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
I didn't see much in the initial stuff I just read. Didn't they simply say that they had no right to rule and that the 9th feds should not have even taken it? It reads to me like CA ban is/was overturned by high state court or trial court and that stands. Says nothing about other states. Probably would have been better had they ruled more broadly.

As for the DOMA it was obvious to me that would not stand. Again though it only helps folks where states do these marriages so they are recognized as more than 2nd tier marriages. Or I suppose those that go to a state to get married and return home?

Either way it is a step but not some huge landmark.

As for the civil rights stuff yesterday why the hand wringing and sure death of civil rights? Didn't say just update and don't punish states using facts and info from 40 years ago? Told them to take into account progress made? Correct me please if I am wrong here.

So I would say neither shoutout or d-bag. Kinda lazy of SCOTUS imho.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
pittmike wrote:
I didn't see much in the initial stuff I just read. Didn't they simply say that they had no right to rule and that the 9th feds should not have even taken it? It reads to me like CA ban is/was overturned by high state court or trial court and that stands. Says nothing about other states. Probably would have been better had they ruled more broadly.

As for the DOMA it was obvious to me that would not stand. Again though it only helps folks where states do these marriages so they are recognized as more than 2nd tier marriages. Or I suppose those that go to a state to get married and return home?

Either way it is a step but not some huge landmark.

As for the civil rights stuff yesterday why the hand wringing and sure death of civil rights? Didn't say just update and don't punish states using facts and info from 40 years ago? Told them to take into account progress made? Correct me please if I am wrong here.

So I would say neither shoutout or d-bag. Kinda lazy of SCOTUS imho.


What an asshole...
Author:  Don Tiny [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I didn't see much in the initial stuff I just read. Didn't they simply say that they had no right to rule and that the 9th feds should not have even taken it? It reads to me like CA ban is/was overturned by high state court or trial court and that stands. Says nothing about other states. Probably would have been better had they ruled more broadly.

As for the DOMA it was obvious to me that would not stand. Again though it only helps folks where states do these marriages so they are recognized as more than 2nd tier marriages. Or I suppose those that go to a state to get married and return home?

Either way it is a step but not some huge landmark.

As for the civil rights stuff yesterday why the hand wringing and sure death of civil rights? Didn't say just update and don't punish states using facts and info from 40 years ago? Told them to take into account progress made? Correct me please if I am wrong here.

So I would say neither shoutout or d-bag. Kinda lazy of SCOTUS imho.


What an asshole...



What? Why's pmike an asshole? Skip the obvious reasons ... :D
Author:  KDdidit [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Good to see Scalia had an incredibly douchey dissent from the bench for DOMA.
Author:  pittmike [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I didn't see much in the initial stuff I just read. Didn't they simply say that they had no right to rule and that the 9th feds should not have even taken it? It reads to me like CA ban is/was overturned by high state court or trial court and that stands. Says nothing about other states. Probably would have been better had they ruled more broadly.

As for the DOMA it was obvious to me that would not stand. Again though it only helps folks where states do these marriages so they are recognized as more than 2nd tier marriages. Or I suppose those that go to a state to get married and return home?

Either way it is a step but not some huge landmark.

As for the civil rights stuff yesterday why the hand wringing and sure death of civil rights? Didn't say just update and don't punish states using facts and info from 40 years ago? Told them to take into account progress made? Correct me please if I am wrong here.

So I would say neither shoutout or d-bag. Kinda lazy of SCOTUS imho.


What an asshole...


Well thats odd? Especially since I am not against gays, marriage or civil rights? Sheesh.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
pittmike wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I didn't see much in the initial stuff I just read. Didn't they simply say that they had no right to rule and that the 9th feds should not have even taken it? It reads to me like CA ban is/was overturned by high state court or trial court and that stands. Says nothing about other states. Probably would have been better had they ruled more broadly.

As for the DOMA it was obvious to me that would not stand. Again though it only helps folks where states do these marriages so they are recognized as more than 2nd tier marriages. Or I suppose those that go to a state to get married and return home?

Either way it is a step but not some huge landmark.

As for the civil rights stuff yesterday why the hand wringing and sure death of civil rights? Didn't say just update and don't punish states using facts and info from 40 years ago? Told them to take into account progress made? Correct me please if I am wrong here.

So I would say neither shoutout or d-bag. Kinda lazy of SCOTUS imho.


What an asshole...


Well thats odd? Especially since I am not against gays, marriage or civil rights? Sheesh.


:x

If I have to start explaining jokes on here....
Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
pittmike wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I didn't see much in the initial stuff I just read. Didn't they simply say that they had no right to rule and that the 9th feds should not have even taken it? It reads to me like CA ban is/was overturned by high state court or trial court and that stands. Says nothing about other states. Probably would have been better had they ruled more broadly.

As for the DOMA it was obvious to me that would not stand. Again though it only helps folks where states do these marriages so they are recognized as more than 2nd tier marriages. Or I suppose those that go to a state to get married and return home?

Either way it is a step but not some huge landmark.

As for the civil rights stuff yesterday why the hand wringing and sure death of civil rights? Didn't say just update and don't punish states using facts and info from 40 years ago? Told them to take into account progress made? Correct me please if I am wrong here.

So I would say neither shoutout or d-bag. Kinda lazy of SCOTUS imho.


What an asshole...


Well thats odd? Especially since I am not against gays, marriage or civil rights? Sheesh.

Maybe he was just complimenting your asshole.
Author:  pittmike [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
:lol: :lol:
Author:  Furious Styles [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
pittmike is just a little sensitive when it comes to asshole talk...
Author:  Tall Midget [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Yeah but he takes a licking and keeps on tick(l)ing.
Author:  Hawg Ass [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Keeping Score wrote:
I am very pleased with this meme.

What does it mean?
Author:  pittmike [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Furious Styles wrote:
pittmike is just a little sensitive when it comes to asshole talk...



I am really surprised I haven't appeared on a sig line with that yet. :lol:
Author:  Houston Homer [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
KDdidit wrote:
Good to see Scalia had an incredibly douchey dissent from the bench for DOMA.



He's obviously insane! Why was he ranting about hedonistic sodomy? There's no hedonistic sodomy in marriages!! :lol:

Seriously, the law was NOT about sex, but federal rights extended or not to ALL married couples. Why does it always come back to sex with these creeps??

Today was a good day.
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Houston Homer wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Good to see Scalia had an incredibly douchey dissent from the bench for DOMA.



He's obviously insane! Why was he ranting about hedonistic sodomy? There's no hedonistic sodomy in marriages!! :lol:.


Usually no regular sodomy either.
Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Houston Homer wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Good to see Scalia had an incredibly douchey dissent from the bench for DOMA.



He's obviously insane! Why was he ranting about hedonistic sodomy? There's no hedonistic sodomy in marriages!! :lol:.


Usually no regular sodomy either.

Image
Author:  Don Tiny [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Terry's Peeps wrote:
:x

If I have to start explaining jokes on here....



You'll do what you're told, Ivan-Lite.
Author:  Houston Homer [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Houston Homer wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
Good to see Scalia had an incredibly douchey dissent from the bench for DOMA.



He's obviously insane! Why was he ranting about hedonistic sodomy? There's no hedonistic sodomy in marriages!! :lol:.


Usually no regular sodomy either.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Don Tiny wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
:x

If I have to start explaining jokes on here....



You'll do what you're told, Ivan-Lite.


Image
Author:  Nas [ Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
Image
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SCOTUS
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/