The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Nullification, the far Right's fall back point?

Nullification is heating up in the red states.

Alabama Supreme Court chief judge Roy Moore has stated that he will refuse a federal court order to implement gay marriage.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/alabama_chief_justice_roy_moor_1.html

Yes, this is the same judge who was removed from the bench in 2003 for disobeying the orders of a federal court to remove a statue of the 10 commandments.
 
^ Ironic.

In Moore's letter to Alabama governor Robert Bently, he said:

"Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."
Click to expand...

...even as he initiated judicial tyranny and issued unlawful opinions without constitutional authority.
 
"Segregation Now! Segregation Forever!"

Everything old is new again ...
 
I wish there was a way that the Feds could legally separate Alabama from the United States, and tell them to GET LOST and not come back.

But, then, the Feds under a different mindset could instead tell New england to take a hike, because they're making the USA too liberal and Democratic...
 
T-Rexx said:
Huckabee made a fool of himself on Meet the Press.

He advocated nullification of any gay marriage rights the Supreme Court might decide, on the basis that states have this "right" to ignore the Supreme Court.

When asked if that included segregation, he insisted that it did not, and that this was not a contradiction.


http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/01/30/great-confusion-mike-huckabee-esquire
Click to expand...

I think the hosts here got it pretty right, when you actually look at what he is saying, he is not coming right out and saying the states should ignore the court. He is harping on procedural fine print, of course the legislature and administrative branches of the states has the follow through with changes to the law and procedures BUT that doesn't overrule the court. He is dancing around the issue to make it sound like he is saying the court doesn't matter without actually saying it. He is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too to avoid losing the social right base. Typical politician spin.
 
Stardreamer said:
He is dancing around the issue to make it sound like he is saying the court doesn't matter without actually saying it. He is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too...
Click to expand...

What Huck is trying to say is that states have a right to ignore the Supreme Court when the Republican Party does not like its rulings, but that they do not have this right when Republicans (especially Huckabee himself) agree with the court.

If the Supreme Court were somehow to rule that gay marriage be expressly prohibited across the United States, Huck would be the first to insist that those states which had passed marriage equality by legislative fiat or popular mandate had no right to ignore the highest court in the land, and must stop performing gay marriages immediately.
 
So what do you think about President Obama deciding he doesn't have to enforce laws (that he actually signed) that he doesn't like? Is that the same "nullification" you are talking about?
 
T-Rexx said:
What Huck is trying to say is that states have a right to ignore the Supreme Court when the Republican Party does not like its rulings, but that they do not have this right when Republicans (especially Huckabee himself) agree with the court.

If the Supreme Court were somehow to rule that gay marriage be expressly prohibited across the United States, Huck would be the first to insist that those states which had passed marriage equality by legislative fiat or popular mandate had no right to ignore the highest court in the land, and must stop performing gay marriages immediately.
Click to expand...

An "activist judge" is a judge who just made a ruling you disagree with.
 
kev said:
So what do you think about President Obama deciding he doesn't have to enforce laws (that he actually signed) that he doesn't like? Is that the same "nullification" you are talking about?
Click to expand...

I would say you have no idea what "nullification" actually refers to. There was a crisis and everything. Read a book on it; it's very interesting. :lol:

By the way, it's been established for over 150 years that the executive can basically execute however they like as long as it causes no harm (think marijuana). Lincoln and FDR actually took things a step further and executed things that were neither constitutional nor legal and it's generally agreed that they were among our best presidents.

And if you're referring to the ACA it's entirely within the powers of the president to delay implementation of laws or provisions. It's called execution. That's what the executive is in charge of. Enforcement is dependent on execution.
 
T-Rexx said:
What Huck is trying to say is that states have a right to ignore the Supreme Court when the Republican Party does not like its rulings, but that they do not have this right when Republicans (especially Huckabee himself) agree with the court.

If the Supreme Court were somehow to rule that gay marriage be expressly prohibited across the United States, Huck would be the first to insist that those states which had passed marriage equality by legislative fiat or popular mandate had no right to ignore the highest court in the land, and must stop performing gay marriages immediately.
Click to expand...

Of course, as I said typical politician.
 
mightbe said:
And if you're referring to the ACA it's entirely within the powers of the president to delay implementation of laws or provisions. It's called execution. That's what the executive is in charge of. Enforcement is dependent on execution.
Click to expand...

Yes. I forget the case, but we looked at one having to do with education when I was in the teaching program at OSU; the Court ruled that if implementing a law as written would cause harm, the implementation could be drawn out in order to mitigate the harm. The principle underneath is that the government is supposed to serve the people, and harming them is contrary to that.


I wish today's police would remember that....
 
mightbe said:
I would say you have no idea what "nullification" actually refers to. There was a crisis and everything. Read a book on it; it's very interesting. :lol:

By the way, it's been established for over 150 years that the executive can basically execute however they like as long as it causes no harm (think marijuana). Lincoln and FDR actually took things a step further and executed things that were neither constitutional nor legal and it's generally agreed that they were among our best presidents.

And if you're referring to the ACA it's entirely within the powers of the president to delay implementation of laws or provisions. It's called execution. That's what the executive is in charge of. Enforcement is dependent on execution.
Click to expand...


What book are you talking about?

I take it from your response that Republicans are A-OK in "nullifying" anything they want, since the "President" has done it for 150 years, and they remain popular. Popularity is key for you. The Constitution be damned, but, wow, he is popular! I can smell the bobby sox from your fingers that typed your post.

There is nothing in the Constitution about nullification. From you post, you say that it is okay if the Executive Branch does it, but not the Legislative Branch. I am mystified at how how you arrived at this, but whatever. You are making it up as you go along.

What about when the Republicans win the White House in 2016? When President Walker decides not to enforce the tax code to, say, not prosecute anyone who doesn't pay more than 10 percent in capital gains tax, you will be okay with that? Believe me, it will be popular!

Sweet! I will hang on to my Solyndra stock until then! (It's still good, isn't it?)
 
I stand corrected; my response is now that you cannot read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top