U.S. Supreme Court legalizes nationwide gay marriage

YorkeDaddy · 06-30-2015, 03:00 PM

*walking down the street*

"Hey GWG what's up"

"YOU SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH THAT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO SAY THAT TO ME"

._.

**Exo** · 06-30-2015, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grtwhtgrvty

Whatever. Have fun with your self righteousness and your ignorant armchair psychology. You and dwnwthvwls both need to educate yourselves.

...he said from his soapbox.

Machine · 06-30-2015, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

*walking down the street*

"Hey GWG what's up"

"YOU SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH THAT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO SAY THAT TO ME"

._.

S...sorry I guess... :/

Xurtio · 06-30-2015, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

@ xurtio

that's interesting.. but i don't think that is what the supreme court is meant to do. i know you say it's not about what they should do but what they actually do, but i interpreted that as "in a perfect world... they should do x" where as the political reality doesn't allow that.

but as far as i understand the role of the supreme court, the role they are supposed to play is in ruling on legal cases on a federal level using logic and precedents derived from the constitution and previous legal rulings.

ThisNation.com--Supreme Court Decision Making

this is why politicians and polemics often whine about "activist judges" and the like.. the supreme court was never intended to act as a tool for implementing political agendas. of course the pragmatic reality is that presidents are elected and presidents get to appoint justices, and so presidents tend to appoint justices which conform to their ideological persuasion. even this is a sort of bastardization of the role the supreme court is supposed to fulfill.

but if you're saying the supreme court is just guided by popular opinion vs actual legalese logic then i'd say that makes the supreme court even more of a joke, to me. i would ask why not just make these decisions a matter of public referendum, if the qualifying criteria for a sound supreme court decision is public support. we really don't need judges to determine what the popular opinion is, if that's all that matters.

You're black and white thinking, again, is causing more issue here than is necessary. Public opinion is an influence on supreme court decisions, in some cases more than others. Particularly, though, in cases pertaining to social liberties.

You take that to the extreme of being the point of supreme court ("is meant to do") but I never said that.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 06-30-2015, 04:03 PM

nah... honestly i think you're just using these terms like "false dilemma" and "black and white thinking" as a lazy way to dismiss my pov instead of arguing directly against anything i'm saying.

Xurtio · 06-30-2015, 04:04 PM

Re: grt psychoanalysis train

I'm going to go with borderline personality disorder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

nah... honestly i think you're just using these terms like "false dilemma" and "black and white thinking" as a lazy way to dismiss my pov instead of arguing directly against anything i'm saying.

You're arguing against straw men though. Your whole post was about the what scotus was meant to be and I was talking about an influence.

JWB is it possible you're bored and trying to generate arguments (I mean it does seem to fit your personality in thread generation on this subforum) rather than me being lazy? Do you not see how your thinking is linear and black and white ("scotus is based only on thus or only on that") you did the same thing with your geopolitical perspective ("it's ALL geopolitics!").

You tend to take a line and run it to the extreme rather than considering that most social situations are a complicated emergence of several underlying factors.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 06-30-2015, 04:12 PM

did i actually say you said this is how the supreme court is meant to be? you guys throw these logical fallacies around without seemingly knowing what they actually mean/how to apply them. my post was about what i perceived the supreme court's purpose to be vs what the supreme court is actually doing... not every post i make in response to you is meant to be discrediting you or something you said.

i never said "xurtio thinks that's what the supreme court is meant to do"

i just said i don't think that's what it's meant to do

are you saying that somehow bringing up the fact that the supreme court might be doing something other than what it was intended to do is irrelevant to the discussion?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 06-30-2015, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

JWB is it possible you're bored and trying to generate arguments (I mean it does seem to fit your personality in thread generation on this subforum) rather than me being lazy? Do you not see how your thinking is linear and black and white ("scotus is based only on thus or only on that") you did the same thing with your geopolitical perspective ("it's ALL geopolitics!").

You tend to take a line and run it to the extreme rather than considering that most social situations are a complicated emergence of several underlying factors.

nah son... i gave you the gospel in the geopolitics thread and you just refused to convert...

Xurtio · 06-30-2015, 04:17 PM

You're being slippery now and back pedaling is what I think. Of course I recognize that this is just my perspective of you, but you were directly challenging my assertion that public opinion influences scotus outcome. And that's fine, but it seems like you're being disingenuous and trying to argue around it and now saying "what I can't discuss this other thing that vaguely supports my counterposition after you've shown evidence supporting your position?"

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 06-30-2015, 04:41 PM

no, you're right, i did challenge the idea that the supreme court rules on the basis of public opinion because i didn't think that was true. i acknowledged when you corrected me, and then went on to say i don't think that's how it was meant to work... what's the problem exactly?

06-30-2015, 04:17 PM	#319 (permalink)
Xurtio Brain Licker Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,083	You're being slippery now and back pedaling is what I think. Of course I recognize that this is just my perspective of you, but you were directly challenging my assertion that public opinion influences scotus outcome. And that's fine, but it seems like you're being disingenuous and trying to argue around it and now saying "what I can't discuss this other thing that vaguely supports my counterposition after you've shown evidence supporting your position?" __________________ H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉ Last edited by Xurtio; 06-30-2015 at 04:21 PM. Reason: **ing tiny keyboards

06-30-2015, 04:03 PM	#315 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	nah... honestly i think you're just using these terms like "false dilemma" and "black and white thinking" as a lazy way to dismiss my pov instead of arguing directly against anything i'm saying.

06-30-2015, 04:12 PM	#317 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	did i actually say you said this is how the supreme court is meant to be? you guys throw these logical fallacies around without seemingly knowing what they actually mean/how to apply them. my post was about what i perceived the supreme court's purpose to be vs what the supreme court is actually doing... not every post i make in response to you is meant to be discrediting you or something you said. i never said "xurtio thinks that's what the supreme court is meant to do" i just said i don't think that's what it's meant to do are you saying that somehow bringing up the fact that the supreme court might be doing something other than what it was intended to do is irrelevant to the discussion?

06-30-2015, 04:41 PM	#320 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	no, you're right, i did challenge the idea that the supreme court rules on the basis of public opinion because i didn't think that was true. i acknowledged when you corrected me, and then went on to say i don't think that's how it was meant to work... what's the problem exactly?