Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Breaking: 'Harm Is Imminent' – Texas Goes To State Supreme Court To Void Lesbians' Marriage (Original Post) MohRokTah Feb 2015 OP
what extreme hatred and fear in these mental midget minds spanone Feb 2015 #1
How horrific! This AG is a mental case IMO. How hateful, crude, ignorant and diabolical! n/t RKP5637 Feb 2015 #2
And the Texas Supreme Court is made up of NUTS! MohRokTah Feb 2015 #3
I don't want to be negative toward Texas, DUers are there, but it's one more state I RKP5637 Feb 2015 #7
Dammit shenmue Feb 2015 #4
They're in complete terror of their heads exploding! MoonRiver Feb 2015 #5
They're afraid of losing a fundraising demographic. n/t Orsino Feb 2015 #11
Spending money from the public coffers .... etherealtruth Feb 2015 #6
And denying them those rights for what earthly reason. It just gets so unbelievable, how far this RKP5637 Feb 2015 #8
Well he's certainly threatening imminent harm mythology Feb 2015 #9
The panel of impartial judges will no doubt deliver a verdict based soley on the facts and law without Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #10
Definitely, that's just how they'll handle it. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #12
AG Paxton is a crook who admitted to breaking the securities laws an idiot Gothmog Feb 2015 #13
These states that are throwing a fit now are just lobbying the SCOTUS in a very open way. The jwirr Feb 2015 #14
"Imminent harm" is not gonna cut it. Manifestor_of_Light Feb 2015 #15
Refineries exploding... boring. Uninsured people... Maybe they want that. Gay Marriage... OH NO!!!! ck4829 Feb 2015 #16
What harm is imminent? WTF? uppityperson Feb 2015 #17
I'd love to see their definition of "imminent harm". hifiguy Feb 2015 #18

RKP5637

(67,109 posts)
7. I don't want to be negative toward Texas, DUers are there, but it's one more state I
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:19 PM
Feb 2015

could never live in or visit. It seems filled with crazies, but so are many other states. This guy is so far over the top, it's brutality for the sake of persecution and sadism by him IMO. He wants to torment them.

RKP5637

(67,109 posts)
8. And denying them those rights for what earthly reason. It just gets so unbelievable, how far this
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:21 PM
Feb 2015

prick wants to go to harm others. He belongs nowhere near any levers of power.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
9. Well he's certainly threatening imminent harm
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:27 PM
Feb 2015

Hopefully the Supreme Court settles this correctly when they decide this term.

These last gasp attempts would be funny if they weren't causing actual harm to the couples who are having their rights violated.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
10. The panel of impartial judges will no doubt deliver a verdict based soley on the facts and law without
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:35 PM
Feb 2015

any threat of reprisal by politicians, as clearly spelled out in the Constitution they all so 'love' - as true American flag waving, pin wearing true white hat patriots.

Won't they?

Gothmog

(145,291 posts)
13. AG Paxton is a crook who admitted to breaking the securities laws an idiot
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:17 PM
Feb 2015

This idiot failed to get a stay and now is whining

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
14. These states that are throwing a fit now are just lobbying the SCOTUS in a very open way. The
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:22 PM
Feb 2015

court will be making a decision soon and this refusal to wait and see is nothing more than throwing a tantrum and making sure that the court hears about it.

I hope the SCOTUS decides it will not be bullied.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
15. "Imminent harm" is not gonna cut it.
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:46 PM
Feb 2015

From a legal perspective, to get a temporary injunction (this is probably not a T.I. but similar in nature) you have to show a probability of imminent harm to the moving party if the order is not rescinded.

Getting your feelings hurt is not "imminent harm".

ck4829

(35,077 posts)
16. Refineries exploding... boring. Uninsured people... Maybe they want that. Gay Marriage... OH NO!!!!
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:48 PM
Feb 2015

Is there like a gas leak somewhere or something?

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
18. I'd love to see their definition of "imminent harm".
Sat Feb 21, 2015, 05:24 PM
Feb 2015

I have clerked for two judges, both of whom would have laughed this claim out of court. But that's Minnesota.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Breaking: 'Harm Is Immine...