When will marriage equality hit the Supreme Court?

[RJKarl]

Thanks for showing yourself again. Here's the original thing between 06 and myself. Only in your bizarro world, would the following would be considered a tirade:

" Originally Posted by DeaconCav06 View Post
SCOTUS is not going to rule against gay marriage."

I hope they don't. Am I right to think they will try to find any excuse not to have to make the ruling?"

How in the world is that considered a "tirade"?

 

[RChildress107]

This.

It's sadly predictable that you consciously neglect my statements when they don't allow you to act like an asshole:

"I would have picked 2017 over 2015 due the SC not wanting itself to be a major issue in the presidential campaign. If they vote against marriage equality in 2016, there could be a Dem landslide in every purple state. I don't think they want that to happen.


TWICE in the same paragraph, I said they wouldn't want to make that ruling. That's not enough for you.

See post #15.

 

[RJKarl]

Maybe you can "teach" me about the new math. You know where Post #15 comes before Post #8.

Here's what would said in Post #8. "11-07-2014, 10:38 AM #8
RChildress107 RChildress107 is online now
Steve Lepore

Join Date
Oct 2011
Posts
1,876
Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
I would have picked 2017 over 2015 due the SC not wanting itself to be a major issue in the presidential campaign. If they vote against marriage equality in 2016, there could be a Dem landslide in every purple state. I don't think they want that to happen.

Roberts does not want to become one of the least powerful and most meaningless Chief Justice's in US history. With a Dem WH and Senate and the 83+YOs Scalia and Kennedy ready to leave the Court, the next twenty years of Roberts' tenure would logically be in a 6-3 minority.

If that happens, Roberts be as irrelevant as any CJ in the past 100 years. What will be even worse for his legacy is that many of his major rulings could easily be overturned.

I believe that seeing the groundswell in state after state Roberts may actually vote for marriage equality to avoid becoming the Supreme Court's Mr. Irrelevant."

Thanks for sharing your great insight on the history and operation of the Supreme Court! Where did you learn all that?

Your snide, arrogant and clear insult predated mine. What the board doesn't know is that in addition to this public slap, you sent a PMt hat was insulting before my Post #15 as well.

Of course you won't take any responsibility for your actions. You will blame me for Post # 8 and the condescending PMs.

 

[deacvision7]

If people wouldn't start anything, there wouldn't be any problems with me. I'd love that to happen, but I'm not going to be a pinata.

It's never your fault
It's never your fauuullltttt
Always the victim
It's never your fault!

 

[RChildress107]

Maybe you can "teach" me about the new math. You know where Post #15 comes before Post #8.

And yet you chose not to respond to that post. You instead started a now 5 page tirade because I agreed with Cav's sound opinion, which you took as some sort of slight claiming that I had ignored your great insight.

I'm not sure why you keep quoting the word "teach" either. I'm not a teacher, and I'm certainly not yours. My PM's were merely responses to yours. If they were snide or arrogant it's likely because you deserved it.


I will take responsibility for post #8 though. I would have taken the time to explain why each point you made in your initial post was wrong, except you have repeatedly shown that you do not respond well to such tactics. Instead I chose to highlight in a sarcastic way that you have no legal background or particular knowledge as to the workings of the Supreme Court.

 

[RJKarl]

You are not only falsely arrogant. You are totally dishonest.

You even lied about the PMs. You sent me the first one. It's not as you allege above. You can't even tell the truth in something this easy.

 

[RChildress107]

You are not only falsely arrogant. You are totally dishonest.

You even lied about the PMs. You sent me the first one. It's not as you allege above. You can't even tell the truth in something this easy.

I sent that PM in direct response to the message you included with a negrep.

 

[RJKarl]

This will never go anywhere. Your only interest is in showing how much better you think you than I am. There's no sense cluttering the boards with it. Bye.

 

[RChildress107]

This will never go anywhere. Your only interest is in showing how much better you think you than I am. There's no sense cluttering the boards with it. Bye.

Nope. I've already said that I'm not better than you. Simply better educated when it comes to this particular subject matter. I'm just getting the facts straight. I can post your initial negrep and my direct response via PM if you'd like.

You of all people shouldn't be surprised when others balk at being called "totally dishonest."

 

[DeaconSlim2.0]

This will never go anywhere. Your only interest is in showing how much better you think you than I am. There's no sense cluttering the boards with it. Bye.

 

[RChildress107]

And the check's in the mail and I won't cum in your mouth. Those are more believable that your statements here.

In all these years, you have never shown the ability not to be a sarcastic, condescending asshole. Why would should I believe you'd do it now?

As to proofreading, once again you show you don't pay attention to my posts. All you care about it that I wrote them. Then you flail off into a Pavlovian rage. There have been very few typos recently. This has never been of consequence to you.

A perfect example of why you can't be trusted is that when I talk about Justices worrying about their legacy, I am wrong. When 06 talks about it, you agree.

My post also talks of the ages of the Justices. The reality is Scalia and Kennedy will each be 83 yo by the middle of the next presidential term and 85 by the end of the first term. These are indisputable facts.

It's also indisputable that not many Justices are still active at 85.

It's also indisputable that with a Dem in the WH, Roberts is likely to spend 10-20 years in at least a 6-3 minority.

I also said IF about multiple posts. You read IF to mean I made a definitive statement. IF means hypothetically.

You also freaked out about these OPINIONS:

"It's been decades since the Supreme Court has intentionally denied Americans equal rights.

I think the combination of the results of their terrible decision on VRA and supporting states' denying one group of people the rights others have would create a groundswell. "

I didn't state them as facts. But acted like I did.

You've acted the same way on other threads. Maybe if you show me that you can be civil and that you understand the difference an opinion and saying something is a fact, I'll pay attention to you.

I will promise one thing. The next time you are condescending or act superior will be the last post of your I ever see.,

Um, ok

Just to demonstrate how unprovoked this was, below is my offer for a truce of sorts, which I have made to rj multiple times

We can keep going back and forth if you'd like. As long as your posts, especially ones about me, contain inaccuracies I will continue to call them out.

I will re-extend my offer to limit my responses solely to those inaccuracies (leaving out the sarcasm and condescension) if you will agree to 1. proofread your posts and 2. respond to the content in posts you directly quote.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I do not care about this at all (except to care enough to post that I do not care).

Marriage equality will be here soon.

 

[RChildress107]

I do not care about this at all (except to care enough to post that I do not care).

Marriage equality will be here soon.

This.

 

[ThinkingWithMyDeac]

The scary thing is look at how old RJ is, and the Supreme Court justices are even older and are responsible for these important decisions. By the time RJ is that age he will be trying to type with applesauce shit covered fingers but in reality will just be smearing things across the wall of his one bedroom assisted living

 

[RJKarl]

To the rest of the board, I am sorry where this went.

 

[RChildress107]

To the rest of the board, I am sorry where this went.

Me too. And by the way, per requirements, I'm sorry for posting this private discussion.

Re: What the fuck is your problem?
Did you also think you mailed me a check?

You must have to think "I won't cum in your mouth" is "over the line". Maybe even as a teenager you never said that to a girl or woman. I'm sorry.

By the way "amirite" is not proper English.

If the post comes down, we can continue.

Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107

Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl
I thought we were having a private discussion.

You are so dishonest and classless you posted my response to you.

Don't blame me for your lack of manners or integrity.

Let's see if you have any and take our PRIVATE discussion off the board.

We were. And then you stopped having a discussion and took it somewhere else entirely. As a general rule, when the first sentence of a private message to a complete stranger features the words "cum in your mouth", you crossed the line.

Talk about classless and manners amirite

RJKarl RJKarl is online now
Tim Duncan

RJKarl's Avatar Join Date
Mar 2011
Location
HB, CA
Posts
39,338

By the way
An apology for posting a private discussion is now required.

 

[Billy Mitchell]

I cannot express how happy it makes me to know that RJ thinks "I won't come in your mouth" is one of the least believable statements a person can say.

 

[Biff Tannen]

To the rest of the board, I am sorry where this went.

This should be your signature line.

 

[WFFaithful]

Bill says, “I support single-payer village healthcare.”

And then Mary writes, “Bill is a faggot communist.”

And then Ted says, “I won’t shop at Mary’s boutique until Mary apologizes to Bill.”

Then Angela says, “Stand with Mary against the assault on her freedom of speech!”

And then Bill says, “Angela is a racist.”

And Jeff says, “Anyone who shops at Mary’s boutique is a racist.”

And Ted says, “Check your privilege.”

And Mary says, “I don’t remember who I am in this story but I’m furious.”

And then someone writes, “FUCKK YOU TED!!1!” in all caps with a bunch of typos.

Soon there were really only two kinds of messages people would write—either vicious personal attacks, or self-righteous calls for apology—until eventually the villagers, angry and exhausted and sick of the noise and rancor just started pelting each other with the rocks until all the rocks were broken and all the leaves were shredded and finally in the silence, after the dust had settled, the villagers shrugged their shoulders, and turned back toward the smug and satisfied village elders who were just waiting for their chance to regain supremacy—just waiting for the moment when the villagers would come crawling back, desperate to be led, desperate for the reassuring simplicity of the old order, of the establishment, of the way things used to be.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-culture-of-shut-up/360239/