Did Democrats Just Lose the 2016 Election?

Again a couple blustered about it.

There is nothing for a President to enforce here, it's a state matter not a federal matter.

There will not be another case going to the SCOTUS as marriage has been decreed a fundamental right. And especially for this coming election.

 

I think the "right" is just fed up with the issue and will now move on taking the wind out of the sails of the left and there use of this as a divisive issue.

 

More than a couple. Those 2 most outspoken were some of the favorites as well.

If someone defies a SCOTUS ruling it is indeed the executive branch's job to enforce the law. Kind of how it works actually.

Yes no more cases ever!! Because reasons! Because once Roe v Wade was decided there was never another challenge to abortion brought up ever and the republicans totally shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up about it and so did the democrats and it became a total non-issue in every election thereafter.

 

Under what jurisdiction? It will still be a matter for the court not the President.

Different matter altogether. RvW did not establish a new fundamental right to abortion and left LOTS of grey area otherwise. It said there was some right to privacy without elaborating on what that privacy is exactly. And could not even determine at what stage elective abortion should be restricted and that had to be litigated. This ruling is much more clearer, more concise and to one issue only declaring a clear fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex.

What's the challenge to be made now? Even here in Alabama the counties are starting to issue them as a few legal questions concerning pending cases are being cleared up. What will the Democrats use to make this a key issue in 2016? I bet ever state is issues licenses by then and same sex couples have no problem getting married.

 

Legislative: Writes the laws. Judicial: Rules on the laws. Executive: Enforces the laws.
You know how that works right?

RvW was quite clear: Abortions up to viability are protected. Didn't stop cases, legislation, or political (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing.

What will they use? All those pubs saying "just ignore it" or "we'll pass a law saying" etc. As stated earlier you'd have a point if the PUBS would stop making it an issue.

 

Federal law. This wasn't about a law, this was about a right. There is no federal law that requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. State law governs marriage. Congress did not just pass a law requiring all states to issue same sex marriage licenses, there is no such law on the books.

No it wasn't clear because it did say abortions are constitutional, it declared a vague right to privacy and then didn't state what is viable. That has already shifted several times since RvW and THAT is the whole problem with the court declaring it instead of the legislature debating and declaring it. RvW was fundamentally flawed because of that and that is why litigation comes along every now and then.

Again bluster that is already going away. A Republican president can do nothing about it and the states are already starting to issue the marriage licenses even here in Alabama.

They are, YOU are trying to make it an issue. And Democrats will not be able to run on, we will fight for your right to marry someone of the same sex, it has been settled now and a declared fundamental right. They may try "I will fight to force that wedding cake baker to violate his own moral tenants to force him to bake you a cake with homosexual overtones" but I think that is a losing battle to win over the moderates.

So now that all the states will be issuing the licenses what issue will the Democrats make out of it?

 

The constitution otherwise known as "The Supreme LAW of the Land".... does that help fill in the blanks for you?

Viability was in fact defined in RvW. As was the fact that right to privacy prevented a law banning abortions pre-viability. And yet such was still argued about and continues to be, decades later. Point made.

A republican president could do plenty. "The DOJ under my presidency will seek no actions against states that refuse to comply" would be all it took to make this toothless as the decision on the Trail of Tears. A number of candidates have openly called to simply ignore SCOTUS on this.
You can keep trying to wish it away but its not going away.

The same issue they've been making out of this: You have this thing (gay rights) and they (pubs) want to take it away!! Why just listen to the things that they say "JUST IGNORE SCOTUS!!!" "ONE MAN ONE WOMAN IS WHAT I BELIEVE AND THIS IMPERIAL COURT..." Blah blah blah.

 

Most, but not all Mexicans are catholic, And do not support the democrats on this ruling, Now you have lost a voting block
that they were trying to get.

....

 

Ah, this is true, please remember this when one of your fellow conservatives think that ISIS is working with Mexicans to invade the US. (Incompatible ideology)

But see, Hispanic voters are shunned by the GOP. So, more than likely many will still vote Democrat, you might be right, this might be big enough of an issue for them to swing GOP, however, the GOP platform of "Deport them all, let Mexico sort them out" doesn't really sit well with Hispanics who were born on US Soil, lived here their entire lives, and now are old enough to vote.

Of course Trump's platform that most Hispanics are rapists with a few good people, doesn't really sit well with Hispanic voters either.

 

Gay Marriage was an issue, and likely will still have some sway as congress may still try to muddy those waters.

Bigger issues are income inequality, wages, the TPP and other issues that the Conservatives would love to see get swept away by the flood of noise that surrounds the gay marriage thing.

Have no doubt, Democrats have a solid plank to run on when it comes to tearing apart the Oligarchy that has been created since Reagan, if anyone of them would grow a pair of balls and stop running as Republican Lite.

 

Don't kid yourself... Republican contenders will talk about it. The more they do it, the more they'll look out of date to everyone else. The inevitable foot in mouth is on the way.

 

STATE law is subject to the Constitution.

Really, can you point to me where SCOTUS made the medical and scientific determination of exactly when viability occurs?

Can you point to me where SCOTUS determined this exact moment?

And then explain how if I have a right to privacy why I have to turn over my most private information to the federal government every April 15th.

Yes, BECAUSE it was such a faulty unreasoned ruling. So called "viability" has shifted, no one can clearly state what a "right to privacy" even means. Had they just ruled as they did here that there is simply a fundamental right to abortion none of the ancillary lawsuits would have arisen.

The DOJ will have little to do with it when an individual sues a state for not complying. The DOJ had nothing to do with the same-sex marriage court proceedings and final ruling other than an amicus brief. As I already stated the Democrats can't even take credit for getting it done.

 

And you're still not getting it. US law is subject to the constitution doesn't matter state or federal.


28-24 weeks at that time viability being defined as ". . . potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.". http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html You're looking for pg 160. About the middle.
As with many things the law rules on its a case by case thing. Viable is when in the opinion of the doctor about to perform the abortion the fetus could survive outside the womb.

Because you're not defining the "right to privacy" correctly. A better metaphor would be "then why is it the government's business if I smoke pot or drink etc".

Viability was intended to shift. That's why it was chosen as a standard. Its a sliding scale approaching zero, the idea is eventually they can simply pluck it out of you instead of abortion. The opinion is quite well reasoned in that respect.

Unless people start having them sued for civil rights violations now that its an established right. You don't think so far ahead do you?

 

They are learning from the Amerikan "liberal" then

 

In the minds of the wacko birds who are fixated on those "liberals! in their noggins, the vast conspiracy has now been extended to include the US Supreme Court, the South Carolina Republican governor and legislature, most of the GOP's leading candidates for the presidential nomination, the American electorate, all advanced, first-world democracies, and the Pope.

They have chosen a wise master.

 

Yes it does and the federal DOJ had nothing to do with this.

Ahhh that is now about 22 weeks. And it could be earlier, there is no moment of viabilty that can be 100% determined it is a made of milestone but then they had to have something. And BTW abortions, legal abortions occur AFTER that milestone has been passed. Even you cite says "potential" and SCOTUS never explained why THAT is the milestone. As I said and as has been the case all along, RvW was a bad decision and bad legal reasoning based on arbitrary standards because it did not declare a fundamental right to abortion but attempts to hide behind this so-called right to privacy, while the SSM ruling is very concise, and quite clear, there is a fundamental right to marriage.

Do you agree there is a fundamental right to marriage? No President can violate that else face impeachment. But then it is a STATE matter not a FEDERAL matter.

As a white male, please tell me what my right to privacy gets me? As I said I have to IN DETAIL report to the government my most private information every April 15th, if I have a right to privacy why is there an income tax system where I am require by law to report that information and businesses and banks and investment firms have to supply the government with my private information?

 

Can you describe "due process of law"?

 

Again, the DOJ can file civil rights suits now. You're not getting it.

Viability is still the standard. And they do actually explain why the balancing point of the interests is there. I can tell you haven't read the decision because you missed that part.

There is a right to be able to be married, yes. As to presidents disobeying the SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
It concerns an individual liberty, its a federal matter if the state infringes on the right.

Right to not have to disclose medical records, right not to have to receive medical care. It should cover far more than that, you have that part correct.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy
Notice there are 2 types, statutory and constitutional. Notice they refer to 2 different things. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_Information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_Autonomy
You could've done that yourself earlier to educate yourself upon the subject before speaking and making a fool of yourself.

 

The agreeived person files the lawsuit if they believe their rights are being violated, and guess what even my state of Alabama is issuing licences.

Strawman.

It is not a standard because it cannot be defined nor determined at the time of the abortion and abortion is legal in third trimester.

Oh I read it many times and every time note the vagueness of the ruling which is why it was contested and the "standard" continues to shift.

Not the case with this ruling.

As of last week. And the Democrats will not be able to run on the premise of "elect us and we will make SSM legal in all 50 states" the SCOTUS just usurped them, they can't even run on the basis that they did it, they had nothing to do with it.

Please elaborate. Yes the court will intercede and order the state to comply, which it did.

I have to disclose them on my tax returns, and the Feds now have access to those records under Obamacare.

right not to have to receive medical care. It should cover far more than that, you have that part correct.

If you believe your links support your argument then cut and paste the relevant parts and explain how you come to that conclusion.

And again I have to under penalty of law report my most private information to the US Government every April 15th, so where exactly is my right to privacy? I have to tell the government about my medical insurance now, where is my right to privacy? I have to tell them how much money I earned, where is my privacy? I have to tell them about what charities I give to and how much, where is my privacy?

Privacy is privacy when the government defines what is or is not private then there is no right to privacy.

And again because of the hoops the SCOTUS jumped through to make abortion legal just as you are doing now attempting to explain it, rather than like the SSM case where it clearly declared a fundamental right to marriage which then comes under the 14th amendment, that is why there have been challenges.

And guess what, abortion is not going to be a major issue in this election. Even the right accepts that abortion is here and will be here. Before this ruling SSM would have been a issue used by the Democrats to try and sway some in the middle.

They don't have it now.

 

And again: Not when you have candidates openly calling for the rule to be defied.

And again you've got pubs challenging the right to have one at all just like this. And just like this it often sinks many a campaign. Mostly because they won't shut their yaps about it and let it die.

Its not vague at all. The reasoning is clearly explained. You just don't like it.

It was recognized long before that. Multiple cases recognize the right to marriage before king v burwell

They can take plenty of credit, both from putting justices up to campaigning to wanting to keep it the decision in play.

SCOTUS ruled that the US had to respect the native's rights to land etc. Jackson already had the trail of tears planned and is famous for having said "Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it" and then doing the whole trail of tears thing anyway. What impeachment did jackson suffer?

You do not in fact disclose your intimate medical records on your tax return. That is a gross oversimplification and you know it.

As to right to privacy: You don't even know what it means enough to frame a proper argument. You couldn't be bothered to google a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing definition before starting this discussion. Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) should I do your research for you?

 

Again initial bluster, it's the STATES that are affect and the state governments appear to be putting the word out to the local county governments, Comply.

For the entire history of RvW and the legal analysis of it that has been the criticism.

No YOU don't just as there is no clear definition of what it is, in fact "right to privacy" was nothing more than a canard for right to abortion. That is why you cannot explain why the government can put me in jail for not disclosing to them my most private information while at the same time claiming I have a right to privacy. When you can reconcile that let me know.

As for now, the Democrats have lost one of their key issues used to ratchet up their support. The question is where will they make it up.

 

How likely do you think the Republicans are to win the Presidency in 2016?

 

If Hilary is nominated, more than likely a Republican will win. Hopefully it's Rand. As an independent who like the states having rights, I can live with that. Otherwise if Bernie Sanders is nominated who actually stands for the middle class, then there can be an actual battle.

 

I would say that it's the GOP who should be worried about their political future, and they've demonstrated their desperation over and over.





And as we know, the GOPers will makes sure that the public is constantly aware of their abnormal stance on same-sex marriage.

 

If you nominate Hillary it will be a cake walk.

I've never noticed how non of you libs realize that no one got trounced harder by Obama than Hillary. Both McCain and Romney, neither or whom are very good campaigners, did a far better job against Obama than Hillary did. Yet you think that she is this great candidate.