• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court replaces Constitution with Bible as Judicial Foundation

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
26,283
Reaction score
23,972
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Forget the Bill of Rights, get right with the Ten Commandments. In a series of decisions, culminating today, the Court's conservative cabal has eliminated the establishment clause entirely. And they've not been subtle about it. They adopted what a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, called “a deceitful narrative”.

"Over the last 60 years, the Supreme Court has rejected prayer in public schools, at least when it was officially required or part of a formal ceremony like a high school graduation. As recently as 2000, the court ruled that organized prayers led by students at high school football games violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.

“The delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority." Supreme Court Sides With Coach Over Prayers on 50-Yard Line (NYT)

That was then. That was before Amy Coney Barrett was jammed onto the Court. "When the Supreme Court refused to hear an earlier appeal in the case in 2019, four justices expressed qualms about how Mr. Kennedy had been treated.

“The Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public-school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote at the time, adding that the justices should wait for more information about “important unresolved factual questions.” He was joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas." This time that group got reinforcements, so they went for it.

In a virtually unbroken string of decisions, the Court's Evangelical wing has upended centuries of tradition to eliminate any semblance of the Establishment Clause in deference to Christian supremacy. A Pro-Religion Court (NYT). "Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has ruled in favor of religious organizations in orally argued cases 83 percent of the time. That is far more than any court in the past seven decades — all of which were led by chief justices who, like Roberts, were appointed by Republican presidents." Today it's close to 90%, but damned if I can find the exception.
 
Forget the Bill of Rights, get right with the Ten Commandments. In a series of decisions, culminating today, the Court's conservative cabal has eliminated the establishment clause entirely. And they've not been subtle about it. They adopted what a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, called “a deceitful narrative”.

"Over the last 60 years, the Supreme Court has rejected prayer in public schools, at least when it was officially required or part of a formal ceremony like a high school graduation. As recently as 2000, the court ruled that organized prayers led by students at high school football games violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.

“The delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority." Supreme Court Sides With Coach Over Prayers on 50-Yard Line (NYT)

That was then. That was before Amy Coney Barrett was jammed onto the Court. "When the Supreme Court refused to hear an earlier appeal in the case in 2019, four justices expressed qualms about how Mr. Kennedy had been treated.

“The Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public-school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote at the time, adding that the justices should wait for more information about “important unresolved factual questions.” He was joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas." This time that group got reinforcements, so they went for it.

In a virtually unbroken string of decisions, the Court's Evangelical wing has upended centuries of tradition to eliminate any semblance of the Establishment Clause in deference to Christian supremacy. A Pro-Religion Court (NYT). "Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has ruled in favor of religious organizations in orally argued cases 83 percent of the time. That is far more than any court in the past seven decades — all of which were led by chief justices who, like Roberts, were appointed by Republican presidents." Today it's close to 90%, but damned if I can find the exception.
Time to tax religious organizations.
 
Can we get back to the topic?
 
When the basis for the exemption from taxes is removed, taxes should be required. When do R's think they should raise taxes? When it is someone else paying them.

Yep, see post #11.
 
Forget the Bill of Rights, get right with the Ten Commandments. In a series of decisions, culminating today, the Court's conservative cabal has eliminated the establishment clause entirely. And they've not been subtle about it. They adopted what a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, called “a deceitful narrative”.

"Over the last 60 years, the Supreme Court has rejected prayer in public schools, at least when it was officially required or part of a formal ceremony like a high school graduation. As recently as 2000, the court ruled that organized prayers led by students at high school football games violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.

“The delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority." Supreme Court Sides With Coach Over Prayers on 50-Yard Line (NYT)

That was then. That was before Amy Coney Barrett was jammed onto the Court. "When the Supreme Court refused to hear an earlier appeal in the case in 2019, four justices expressed qualms about how Mr. Kennedy had been treated.

“The Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public-school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote at the time, adding that the justices should wait for more information about “important unresolved factual questions.” He was joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas." This time that group got reinforcements, so they went for it.

In a virtually unbroken string of decisions, the Court's Evangelical wing has upended centuries of tradition to eliminate any semblance of the Establishment Clause in deference to Christian supremacy. A Pro-Religion Court (NYT). "Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has ruled in favor of religious organizations in orally argued cases 83 percent of the time. That is far more than any court in the past seven decades — all of which were led by chief justices who, like Roberts, were appointed by Republican presidents." Today it's close to 90%, but damned if I can find the exception.
God is destroying Satan before our very eyes and this makes atheist and democrats very uncomfortable.

We might just be witnessing what Christians has been waiting for in our life time
 
Last year, Adam Liptak wrote An Extraordinary Winning Streak for Religion at the Supreme Court (NYT). Since then the skew has increased substantially. The numbers are staggering. In what world does one party win 90% of the time in cases? It doesn't matter how flimsy the case is, as today's decision demonstrates.

But if your religion is not Christian, don't bother. Thus a condemned prisoner can have a pastor "lay on hands", even if it's against the rules, but a Muslim can't even get a visit from an Imam.
 
God is destroying Satan before our very eyes and this makes atheist and democrats very uncomfortable.
I genuinely question the sanity of people that believe there is an ongoing epic battle between the forces of Satan and God.

The separation of Church and state is supposed to exist to protect society from people like you.
 
The fact that a party who hasn't won the popular vote in over 30 years has managed to appoint ~67% of a primary governing body which will stand for decades without an election is an affront to democracy.
 
I genuinely question the sanity of people that believe there is an ongoing epic battle between the forces of Satan and God.

The separation of Church and state is supposed to exist to protect society from people like you.
Why does the left seem to think separation of church and state is a two way street?

Yup after 49 years and four great rulings by the Supreme Court in recent days and Russia getting destroyed..


Me thinks God has had enough of this bullshit


1656348078942.png
 
The fact that a party who hasn't won the popular vote in over 30 years has managed to appoint ~67% of a primary governing body which will stand for decades without an election is an affront to democracy.
And what does that tell you?
 
The fact that a party who hasn't won the popular vote in over 30 years has managed to appoint ~67% of a primary governing body which will stand for decades without an election is an affront to democracy.
And it shows. Confidence in the Supreme Court has plummeted to an all-time low, even among a Republicans. Every Chief Justice in my lifetime has been a Republican appointee, yet Warren and Burger were rational actors. That's now a disability to appointment to any federal bench.
 

Supreme Court replaces Constitution with Bible as Judicial Foundation​


No they didn't - and you and everyone else knows it.

Quit propogating such a manifestly stupid lie.
 
That our democracy is inherently dysfunctional because we keep around ancient customs that we refuse to change.
And abortion is one of the most ancient ones.

Fortunately though, change is working there.
 
Translation ~ you want a authoritarian government you approve of
"Hey, what if our democracy was more representative and accountable to the people?"

"Ahah! So you want an authoritarian state to oppress people!" - someone who is very intelligent and definitely knows what they are talking about
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom