Supreme Court Worship Wins

[gooddad409]

@Ben_Natuf

that would be a bad example since roe is not based on any law, it was invented by the courts.

Amen to that! Invented based on wicked feelings rather than the constitution.

[TheRedComet]

You don’t feel the least bit worried that we gave these robed men and women the power of Demi-Gods?

[TheRedComet]

That’s not their ■■■■■■■ job.

[TheRedComet]

Just about every legal expert agrees that Roe was pulled out of the court’s collective ass.

[WuWei]

@TheRedComet

Just about every legal expert agrees that Roe was pulled out of the court’s collective ass.

They constructed a narrative

[komobu]

This ruling gave California Churches a win over Newsom.

Supreme Court gives temporary win to California churches over coronavirus...

Newsom tried to prohibit All Indoor Religious Services.

I am so glad that the Senate seated Amy Coney Barrett.

[WuWei]

@komobu

I am so glad that the Senate seated Amy Coney Barrett.

I think you mean The Right Honorable Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court of the United States, First of Her Name, the Law Giver, Defender of the Republic, Queen of Severability Doctrine, Carrier of the Dogma Deep Within Her.

[WildRose]

We didn’t, they gave it to themselves in direct contravention of The Constitution itself.

[Zander]

@Guvnah

@WildRose

Read in the Language of The Day and Context of The Times it was Written in most cases there is nothing to “interpret” because it is very plain.

Precisely.

What libs want is for their opinion to to carry as much weight as the true meaning of the actual words of the Constitution. Opinion. Erroneous opinion. And that error begets then next error: Your opinion is just as valid as the lib’s opinion. And, after all, it’s just your opinion that the Constitution’s words speak for themselves.

Truth is, if the Constitution is subject to situational interpretation, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

The world is full of unusual and uncontemplated situations, gray areas, unaddressed areas. Those are typically the type of cases that make it to the Supreme Court, precisely because they are so tricky. SCOTUS is usually applying hard rules to very unorthodox situations. It’s an extremely naive view to expect nine human beings with exceptional intellect to apply one text exactly the same to every single situation. That’s a childish view of how jurisprudence actually works in the real world, imo.

[conan]

Thanks Trump…

[Guvnah]

@Zander

That’s a childish view of how jurisprudence actually works in the real world, imo.

Childish opinion noted and rejected.

[Ben_Natuf]

@Zander

unaddressed areas.

thats covered.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Zander]

Sure, but that’s just powers.

Does the confrontation clause entitle a pedophile to cross examine his five year old victim at trial?

[Zander]

Does free speech protect death threats? If not, why not? I don’t see that in the constitution.

[gooddad409]

@TheRedComet

Just about every legal expert agrees that Roe was pulled out of the court’s collective ass.

Amen to that!

[Zander]

Does the Bill of Rights apply to state governments? It does? What’s up with that?

[Scratch]

In the long run, churches will fade away on their own anyway…Attendance has been dropping for decades.

U.S. Church Membership Down Sharply in Past Two Decades

[Ben_Natuf]

this is not a federal question except as it relates to equal treatment.

[Ben_Natuf]

of course it does. and under the equal treatment clause all persons in one state must be treated the same as all other persons in that state. not the same as persons in other states.