This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Yoorah wrote on 2015-06-27 22:29
Australia also doesn't want them, unless they happen to be useful (engineers, scientists, IT people, etc) which I guess most of them aren't. xd
-
Phunkie wrote on 2015-06-28 02:25
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WON!!!!
There's still much work to do!
BUT WE WON!!!!!! YEAH!
-
Blissfulkill wrote on 2015-06-28 04:19
Seriously? 5 to 4? That's it? Stupid Reagan and his supply side economics.
-
Twin wrote on 2015-06-28 04:44
Interesting
-
Elleanior wrote on 2015-06-28 06:19
Quote from Splatulated;1280168:
thats how australia was started but with criminals
And people who couldn't afford to pay their taxes.
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2015-06-29 07:00
I find it interesting how the conservative judges say it's an unconstitutional reinterpretation of a law, when it is only the logical continuation of past interpretations of that law. Maybe they're the ones who interpret the law according to their own interest...
-
Yoorah wrote on 2015-06-29 15:51
[Image: http://i.imgur.com/Q6iYJwy.jpg]
The struggle is real.
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2015-06-29 22:00
Texas Attorney General rules that no one in Texas is required to obey the supreme court and that they can continue to refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples.
-
Blissfulkill wrote on 2015-06-30 02:30
Quote from Campylobacter jejuni;1280282:
I find it interesting how the conservative judges say it's an unconstitutional reinterpretation of a law, when it is only the logical continuation of past interpretations of that law. Maybe they're the ones who interpret the law according to their own interest...
Define own interest. Is it moral interest, because I'm fairly sure GInsburg acted in her moral interest. I don't get it. Thomas and Scalia probably acted in the best interest of their presidential progenitor.
-
Zeo wrote on 2015-06-30 03:18
Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1280332:
Texas Attorney General rules that no one in Texas is required to obey the supreme court and that they can continue to refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples.
Guess they will have to hand out LOT of million dollars away when they get sued.
Otherwise... Some pastors and so on died from setting themselves on fire in protest of gay marriage.
-
Splatulated wrote on 2015-06-30 04:25
Quote from Zeo;1280360:
Guess they will have to hand out LOT of million dollars away when they get sued.
Otherwise... Some pastors and so on died from setting themselves on fire in protest of gay marriage.
source ??
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2015-06-30 05:34
Quote from Blissfulkill;1280358:
Define own interest. Is it moral interest, because I'm fairly sure GInsburg acted in her moral interest. I don't get it. Thomas and Scalia probably acted in the best interest of their presidential progenitor.
That's beside the point. The point is that they read the law in a completely fallacious way only to support their view. Why they have that view or why they act this unprofessionally is irrelevant. The problem is they do.
And if you think that members of the highest judicial office acting according to the wishes of members of the executive is not worrying, then that's where the problem begins. Actually the problem begins at the part where executive appoints members, without any quality standards, for the express purpose of not upholding the law but of reinterpreting it in their own interest... it's something I'd expect from Uganda or some palce like that.