Supreme Court replaces Constitution with Bible as Judicial Foundation

[Gordy327]

America is a Christian nation

Demonstrably false!

 

[Randomutation]

Your statement was not a dichotomy. You said a number of justices will rule one way based on past decisions. That's ideology not law, if the facts of the case were the same the SCOTUS wouldn't take the case.

No, it's not "ideology". It's speculation. We've been on a speculation tangent ever since your post # 53 - where you speculated that SCOTUS would rule differently if the coach were Muslim. I speculated just the opposite - that SCOTUS would still have ruled in the coach's favor if he were a Muslim. And I stated my reasons for this speculation. In particular that the majority of current Justices have voted in favor of Muslim religious rights in the past. So I fail to see the anti-Muslim bias in SCOTUS that your speculation seems to infer.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, it's not "ideology". It's speculation. We've been on a speculation tangent ever since your post # 53 - where you speculated that SCOTUS would rule differently if the coach were Muslim. I speculated just the opposite - that SCOTUS would still have ruled in the coach's favor if he were a Muslim. And I stated my reasons for this speculation. In particular that the majority of current Justices have voted in favor of Muslim religious rights in the past. So I fail to see the anti-Muslim bias in SCOTUS that your speculation seems to infer.

Wasn't pointing out anti Muslim bias, I was pointing out pro Christian bias. Care to speculate on how this religious question will play out?

Two religious leaders — a Unitarian and a Buddhist — plan to join a South Florida rabbi's legal crusade challenging a new state law banning abortions after 15 weeks, arguing it violates the state Constitution's right to privacy and freedom of religion.

 

[NWRatCon]

I used to, and occasionally still do, write fiction. But for the last few years, the fantasy world so many people live in daily kinda usurps the imagination. It's just so far out there that satire, fantasy and even run of the mill fiction just can't keep up.

 

[Mustachio]

I used to, and occasionally still do, write fiction. But for the last few years, the fantasy world so many people live in daily kinda usurps the imagination. It's just so far out there that satire, fantasy and even run of the mill fiction just can't keep up.

Speaking of fiction, has anybody noted that the idea of a "major questions doctrine" is the height of irony for a "texualist" court? In other words, they look at (apparently, reading at times) the constitution unlike any other court in history and supposedly it is "more accurate" regarding what the founding fathers thought but never said. In trying to read their minds, schools will end up teaching the law in this country is something like this: we have the rights 80 year old catholic men believe we should have in the year 2020. And that is permanent except for the ability to change the constitution, which the justices would provably rule is no longer allowed. The EPA case wasn't even going to be argued by the government - they were literally not planning to ever do what the court reviewed. WHAT?! Why? Oh right, it's so they can reshape the laws. Goodbye democracy, the candle burned out long before the legend ever did.

What annoys me most is people have to know everything all the time on every subject. They know what kids should learn, they know what should be taught in every class, what every law says, they know each issue so well they didn't even have to read about the EPA case to form a 20000 word opinion about it. Thomas Jefferson said

"our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's, are exactly the right."

There. Leave people alone and go on a cruise, oh great victims of America, the poor huddled old wealthy white men. You can all complain about how hard your life is and travel at the same time.

 

[Randomutation]

Wasn't pointing out anti Muslim bias, I was pointing out pro Christian bias. Care to speculate on how this religious question will play out?

Two religious leaders — a Unitarian and a Buddhist — plan to join a South Florida rabbi's legal crusade challenging a new state law banning abortions after 15 weeks, arguing it violates the state Constitution's right to privacy and freedom of religion.

Their religions are irrelevant. If this is something that reaches the Supreme Court it won't succeed unless the composition of the Court has changed a lot by the time the case is heard.

 

[Mustachio]

Their religions are irrelevant. If this is something that reaches the Supreme Court it won't succeed unless the composition of the Court has changed a lot by the time the case is heard.

Their religions are irrelevant but they just ruled abortion is ok to ban because of the Catholic view of a human soul formed at conception? That's ridiculous to suggest

 

[NWRatCon]

Their religions are irrelevant but they just ruled abortion is ok to ban because of the Catholic view of a human soul formed at conception? That's ridiculous to suggest

It's the Supreme Court's version of "the Great Replacement theory" - we'll simply "replace" all the legal precedents and principles we find inconvenient.

 

[george48]

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.

The religious fundamentalists on the SC are just plain evil now...

You had bad representation from a lawyer? Are innocent too maybe?

Well Thomas (with his allegedly insurrectionist wife) said: Go f youself, you don't get a new trial (beacuse of the supposed "finallity" of decisions)

EPA protecting the enviroemt? Unconstitutinonal (but also apperently a right to EFFECTIVE counsel)

And so much more...insanity

 

[Randomutation]

Their religions are irrelevant but they just ruled abortion is ok to ban because of the Catholic view of a human soul formed at conception? That's ridiculous to suggest

That's not the reasoning stated in the written opinion. But yes that may be the motivation that was taking place inside the minds of some or all of those Justices who voted to overturn RvW.

 

[it's just me]

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.

We'll raise taxes when we get our knee on the lefts neck.

 

[mrjurrs]

Their religions are irrelevant. If this is something that reaches the Supreme Court it won't succeed unless the composition of the Court has changed a lot by the time the case is heard.

Their religions do matter. The Establishment Clause has clearly been interpreted to not provide advantages to one religion over another.

 

[it's just me]

Speaking of fiction, has anybody noted that the idea of a "major questions doctrine" is the height of irony for a "texualist" court? In other words, they look at (apparently, reading at times) the constitution unlike any other court in history and supposedly it is "more accurate" regarding what the founding fathers thought but never said. In trying to read their minds, schools will end up teaching the law in this country is something like this: we have the rights 80 year old catholic men believe we should have in the year 2020. And that is permanent except for the ability to change the constitution, which the justices would provably rule is no longer allowed. The EPA case wasn't even going to be argued by the government - they were literally not planning to ever do what the court reviewed. WHAT?! Why? Oh right, it's so they can reshape the laws. Goodbye democracy, the candle burned out long before the legend ever did.

What annoys me most is people have to know everything all the time on every subject. They know what kids should learn, they know what should be taught in every class, what every law says, they know each issue so well they didn't even have to read about the EPA case to form a 20000 word opinion about it. Thomas Jefferson said

"our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's, are exactly the right."

There. Leave people alone and go on a cruise, oh great victims of America, the poor huddled old wealthy white men. You can all complain about how hard your life is and travel at the same time.

"Huddled old wealthy white men?" What are you, a racist, or a self hating wealthy white man?

 

[mrjurrs]

We'll raise taxes when we get our knee on the lefts neck.

Sounds like solid R based economics.

 

[it's just me]

Sounds like solid R based economics.

Actually its a Democrat social revenge idea.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Wasn't pointing out anti Muslim bias, I was pointing out pro Christian bias. Care to speculate on how this religious question will play out?

Two religious leaders — a Unitarian and a Buddhist — plan to join a South Florida rabbi's legal crusade challenging a new state law banning abortions after 15 weeks, arguing it violates the state Constitution's right to privacy and freedom of religion.

You don’t have a religious right to kill babies so it will be dismissed

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's the Supreme Court's version of "the Great Replacement theory" - we'll simply "replace" all the legal precedents and principles we find inconvenient.

Super based.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Their religions are irrelevant but they just ruled abortion is ok to ban because of the Catholic view of a human soul formed at conception? That's ridiculous to suggest

No, they ruled state legislatures can ban abortion for whatever reason they want because the constitution doesn’t mention abortion at all

 

[NolanVoyd]

No, they ruled state legislatures can ban abortion for whatever reason they want because the constitution doesn’t mention abortion at all

The constitution mentions very few things. It isnt a list of everything that is allowed.

Roe was based on the right to privacy, 'get the government off the backs of the people', 'the government has no business getting involved in decisions better made by Americans and their doctors.'

This Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no right to privacy, now government at the federal, state, and local governments can get all up in your business.

Way to go to conservatives.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The constitution mentions very few things. It isnt a list of everything that is allowed.

So what?

Roe was based on the right to privacy, 'get the government off the backs of the people',

Not in the constitution

'the government has no business getting involved in decisions better made by Americans and their doctors.'

Not in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution are “doctors” above laws passed by politicians.

This Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no right to privacy, no government at the federal, state, and local governments can get all up in your business.

Not correct

Way to go to conservatives.

 

[NolanVoyd]

So what?

So the fact that the constitution doesn't mention abortion is irrelevant. It doesn't mention most things.

Not in the constitution

It is implied in the constitution and is born out by a hundred years of Supreme Court precedence.

Not in the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution are “doctors” above laws passed by politicians.

Why would the constitution say that? You seem to not understand what the constitution is and does.

Not correct

Absolutely correct.

 

[FreeStorm84]

So what?

Check the 9th Amendment. There are rights not enumerated that may not be violated. Abortion is one of them. Now if we can get the theocrat wing of the Republican party to see that we'd be better off.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Check the 9th Amendment. There are rights not enumerated that may not be violated. Abortion is one of them. Now if we can get the theocrat wing of the Republican party to see that we'd be better off.

Abortion is not a right at all so the 9th amendment isn’t an issue

 

[FreeStorm84]

Abortion is not a right at all so the 9th amendment isn’t an issue

Then check the 14th Amendment which requires states to abide by constitutional protections provided for BORN persons only. That would be pregnant women not ZEFs. Abortion IS a Constitutional right by implication.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Abortion is not a right at all so the 9th amendment isn’t an issue

Privacy was though.