No. It hasn't.
It's sad that all over this country EVERY OTHER JUDGE GETS IT.
But this guy.


It's not like you're honest enough to admit it, but to some degree I appreciate your point.

On another level, state and city governments are bound to enforce state and city laws. If there is a federal law on immigration it's not their responsibility to enforce it.

It's also not their job to hinder the federal law either though.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Yes, it has, By invalidating the marriage law, which, in Kentucky, only applied to heterosexuals, the SCOTUS has invalidated all other marriage law because it applies only to heterosexuals.
The fact that every other judge is willing to ignore his/her constitutional duties has zero bearing on the facts.

ROFLMAO!
So, ONE judge doesn't know what to do...

But every other judge who understands the situation...
THEY are the ones "ignoring their constitutional duties"????


Some arguments are just too absurd for words.
All you're doing is encouraging a temper tantrum cause things aren't going your way.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Isn't that the way that Leftists so famously judge shop until they find one depraved jurist who will rule in favor of whatever unpopular nonsense they're supporting at the moment?

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”

Actually, no. You should quit trying to read minds because you suck at it. By striking down the marriage law in Kentucky, (please note I didn't indicate other states), the SCOTUS invalidated all of Kentucky's state laws pertaining to marriage. This includes, but isn't limited to, divorce decrees. I don't especially like it, but I am able, unlike you, to recognize a constitutional problem when it is presented.

I know, it's "different" when lib officials ignore laws.

Do you type with a straight face or are you laughing your ass off and saying, "Holy f*ck I hope there's someone dumb enough to believe this partisan, left wing garbage that's completely void of logic" as you hit "Submit Reply?"

Bottom line is conservative officials are jailed when they don't follow the law and lib officials don't have jack-f*ck done to them for turning a blind eye and blatantly ignoring federal law. Period. Debate over. No amount of eye rolls will win you this argument.

__________________

The reason libs like f66 are peeing their pants with glee over this is because they love centralized government. They hate it when any one from the states, no matter which state says no to them. The libs won't be happy until the 10th amendment has been repealed altogether, so they can tell everyone what to do.

__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump

The Tennessee judge who denied a divorce for a straight couple strikes me as an anti-gay-marriage bigot who is using the power of his position to throw an extremely petty and juvenile temper tantrum. That's how it struck me as soon as I heard about it.

__________________
If you're not allowed to question it, it's not science. It's propoganda.

"Wokeness gives people a shield to be mean and cruel, armored in false virtue." - Elon Musk

"What you want to do is appropriate women, you want to appropriate womanhood and turn it into basically a costume that could be worn!" - Matt Walsh to trans activist

And "Rightists" never do that, do they ...


No. They did not.
Please quote SCOTUS where they "invalidated all of Kentucky's state laws pertaining to marriage".
(Hint: you can't do it...)


Again, what I say doesn't really matter to you. I appreciate some liberals have hypocrisy on the issue.
Just like some conservatives have hypocrisy on this issue.

My own personal opinion on "sanctuary" areas has been given to you before.
I won't hold my breath for you to honestly acknowledge it.



There's a difference inbetween violating the 14th amendment and simply refusing to enforce federal laws that it isn't their job to enforce.

Kim Davis violated the 14th amendment.
If any liberal person said "I refuse to give Christians marriage licenses cause I have a religion that objects to Christianity", then have that case hauled in front of a court and toss their butt in jail too.

With sanctuary cities, essentially we have state government people saying they are refusing to enforce federal law. And that act does not violate people's civil rights.
That's the difference.


You haven't one microscopic clue of what my opinion is, even when I tell it to you.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

EXACTLY THIS
How is it that every other state judge gets it, but this one acts stupid?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln