Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not following the whole thing as two topics on display are those I am not interested in: homosexual rights and religion. I will say, however, Davis should have been transferred to another position at work or quit, if she didn't wish to abide by the new and changing rules of the game.Davis's attorney made some comments implying that she will not necessarily abide by the court's instructions. So if religious nutters and political hacks egg her on, along with Kim's new addiction to fame, we may see her trotted off to jail once again. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on her going back to jail.
Well, keys... as much as you hate it... you are in the minority... .
LOL! Nothing says "I GOT NOTHIN'" like the blatant appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) .
But yes... it's the narrow path that is less traveled.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
it was not even proved that the parents of these killers were Democrats, the circumstantial information that is available leans towards the parents being republicans...the mother of Lanza, living in a specific neighborhood that voted 70% or so for Romney, her being a Prepper.....these are not things that imply she is or was a Democrat but the opposite, chances are she was a Repub....TRUE! NONE! Nada, niente, zero, zilch, zip.... as in NONE!NONE, as in NONE were registered Democrats where r mykeys.....there is no way around it, NONE.Yes, you're sorry. Sadly, that doesn't cut it... each and everyone was either a registered Democrat or the product of registered Democrats.
False.
The right wing radio jock lied....
And did I say good morning yet? Good Morning!
LOL! You keep repeating that and it may just change the facts... . But the fact is that they were all either registered Democrats or the product of Registered Democrats; entities that are synonymous.
I'm NOT saying she was one, because that would be lying, it would be a lie, because although it may appear to be so, I have NO ACTUAL SUPPORTIVE FACTS to prove it is so.
And that's what we have here, with this list....a bunch of unsupported accusations...
Also, in most cases, these crazies, even if they were Republicans or had repub parents, are NOT going off the deep end due to political affiliation...outside of the Gifford shooting which could have a political connection, most are just insane people that went off their rockers.... no one from the GOP agrees with or sides with or takes credit for any of these shootings, they do not support these kind of actions, NOR does anyone from the DNC and that's the bottom line!
Actually, I use that term... because a lot of homosexuals do as well... it's called 'sarcasm' ... & it's said with sarcasm for a reason.
Hope that helps.
Of course they do, because the words describe what they are... degenerates. The words are needed because they are distinct, substandard examples of humanity.
But they are so talented.....
Nope......I'm the voice of reason and sanity in a crazy world.Actually, I use that term... because a lot of homosexuals do as well... it's called 'sarcasm' ... & it's said with sarcasm for a reason.
Hope that helps.
Of course they do, because the words describe what they are... degenerates. The words are needed because they are distinct, substandard examples of humanity.
But they are so talented.....
<pffft> you are a birther.... dismissed.
Nope......I'm the voice of reason and sanity in a crazy world.Actually, I use that term... because a lot of homosexuals do as well... it's called 'sarcasm' ... & it's said with sarcasm for a reason.
Hope that helps.
Of course they do, because the words describe what they are... degenerates. The words are needed because they are distinct, substandard examples of humanity.
But they are so talented.....
<pffft> you are a birther.... dismissed.
Homos call every Christian a birther......yet they can't even remember what it means anymore.
Nope......I'm the voice of reason and sanity in a crazy world.Actually, I use that term... because a lot of homosexuals do as well... it's called 'sarcasm' ... & it's said with sarcasm for a reason.
Hope that helps.
Of course they do, because the words describe what they are... degenerates. The words are needed because they are distinct, substandard examples of humanity.
But they are so talented.....
<pffft> you are a birther.... dismissed.
Homos call every Christian a birther......yet they can't even remember what it means anymore.
I am a Christian, & I am not gay & I believe I read that you think Obama wasn't born here.
Tell me I was wrong on that 3rd one, because that IS what a 'birther' is... just like Trump.
Nope......I'm the voice of reason and sanity in a crazy world.Of course they do, because the words describe what they are... degenerates. The words are needed because they are distinct, substandard examples of humanity.
But they are so talented.....
<pffft> you are a birther.... dismissed.
Homos call every Christian a birther......yet they can't even remember what it means anymore.
I am a Christian, & I am not gay & I believe I read that you think Obama wasn't born here.
Tell me I was wrong on that 3rd one, because that IS what a 'birther' is... just like Trump.
Obviously you have me confused.......with somebody who gives a flying fuck what you are. You read me wrong......so you're basically full of excrement.
A Kentucky clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licences to gay couples has said she will not block the process but her name will not appear on the paperwork.
However, Kim Davis questioned on Monday whether licences without her signature would be valid.
Ms Davis, an elected official, has said that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licences.
The US Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal in June.
"I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight. And I certainly don't want to be a whipping post," Ms Davis said. "I am no hero. I'm just a person that's been transformed by the grace of God, who wants to work, be with my family. I just want to serve my neighbours quietly without violating my conscience."
Shortly after Ms Davis addressed reporters, a deputy clerk issued a marriage licence to a lesbian couple without incident.
Despite Ms Davis' claims, several Kentucky officials including the governor said the recently issued licences are valid.
If it helps, Citizen's United can't get married. So much for "personhood". It's only fair a corporations can involve themselves in elections. Labor Unions can. You don't have problems with Teamsters affecting elections do you?snip:
→
US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
Posted on June 26, 2015 | 38 Comments
US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.
Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.
Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.
I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.
When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.
A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today.
Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia
from:US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
some victory that is clouded over by this court being our rulers instead of we the people. all I see is more division for the happiness of a few.
Being that there are 9 Justices, there are 9 opinions on all matters brought forth before the Court. The decision came down 5-4 in favor of giving equal protection to the homogays in the event of marriage being legal in all 50 states.
It's pretty f'd up that Roberts voted that living, breathing, flesh & blood humans be denied their civil rights & attain equal protection under law, but voted for corporation personhood in the Citizen's United case.
If it helps, Citizen's United can't get married. So much for "personhood". It's only fair a corporations can involve themselves in elections. Labor Unions can. You don't have problems with Teamsters affecting elections do you?snip:
→
US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
Posted on June 26, 2015 | 38 Comments
US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.
Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.
Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.
I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.
When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.
A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today.
Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia
from:US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
some victory that is clouded over by this court being our rulers instead of we the people. all I see is more division for the happiness of a few.
Being that there are 9 Justices, there are 9 opinions on all matters brought forth before the Court. The decision came down 5-4 in favor of giving equal protection to the homogays in the event of marriage being legal in all 50 states.
It's pretty f'd up that Roberts voted that living, breathing, flesh & blood humans be denied their civil rights & attain equal protection under law, but voted for corporation personhood in the Citizen's United case.
New Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin on Tuesday ordered county clerks’ names removed from state marriage license forms at the center of a controversy involving Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed after refusing to issue licenses to gay couples. Bevin had said shortly after his election last month — the only second Republican governor of Kentucky since 1971 — that he would change the forms that had drawn objections from Davis and some other clerks.
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, I took action to revise the clerk marriage license form,” Bevin said in a statement. It was unclear what effect his executive order would have on Davis’ case. She made headlines by refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, even after the US Supreme Court in June legalized same-sex matrimony across the nation. Citing her Apostolic Christian beliefs defining marriage as a union exclusively reserved for heterosexual couples, Davis spent five days in jail for defying an order by US District Judge David Bunning to comply with the high court’s decision. Her jailing drew international attention and demonstrations from both sides of the issue. Davis, 50, also briefly met Pope Francis in September in Washington during his US visit.
‘UNCERTAINTY’
Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union, representing couples who had sued Davis, said Bevin’s move only “added to the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over marriage licenses in Kentucky,” as clerk names are required by state law to appear on the licenses. Mat Staver, a lawyer for Davis, called the governor’s action “a wonderful Christmas gift” allowing the county clerk to celebrate the holidays without having to choose between her faith and her job. Davis took steps to remove her name and office from the forms after she was released from jail, and a deputy clerk has issued licenses on her behalf.
Davis repeatedly urged then-governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to remove clerk names from the form or provide other relief so she would not violate her religious beliefs. She has also appealed Bunning’s orders to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Bunning and the appeals court have repeatedly denied her stays in the case. Beshear had said he had no authority to relieve county clerks of their statutory duties by executive order and that the state legislature could address the issue.
Governor removes clerks’ names from marriage licenses - Taipei Times
