If Justice Kennedy Had Known A Christian Would Be Jailed Less Than 3 Months Later...

[Skylar]

Lots of nasty comments = Skylar doesn't have a convincing rebuttal to my points. Thanks for the compliment Skylar.

You demanding we cite your imagination in the constitution else your imagination must be true isn't a point. Its just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish.

As neither your demand nor your conclusion are supported by any evidence. Just you....'saying' it must be so. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

Lots of nasty comments = Skylar doesn't have a convincing rebuttal to my points. Thanks for the compliment Skylar.

You have no 'points'.

You make idiotic claims that have been rebutted over and over and over.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years now.

How can we confirm that? Because same gender couples are getting marriage licenses and are getting married.

Sibling marriage and polygamy is still illegal in Massachusetts.

How can we confirm that? Because no marriage licenses are being issued to siblings or polygamous groups.

 

[Syriusly]

Whenever you can't answer my points, you resort to the same post. "your pseudo-legal gibberish.." etc. etc. etc. What you're really saying is "gee I hope nobody notices that I don't have an answer for what Sil just brought up."

Answer the question asshole.
]

What 'question'?

 

[Freewill]

May I ask what difference it makes her reason?

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?

You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

I see you have't read the Constitution, particularly Article III.

Not sure your point or if you meant article III. But for you and those who thank you here is link to a discussion. No where does it say the SCOTUS makes law.

Article III Section 2

Section 2 - The Meaning
The federal courts will decide arguments over how to interpret the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, and our nation’s rights and responsibilities in agreements with other nations. In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government.

In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, interpreted Article III and Article VI to give the federal courts final say over the meaning of the federal Constitution and federal laws and the power to order state and federal officials to comply with its rulings. The federal courts can make decisions only on cases that are brought to them by a person who is actually affected by the law. Federal courts are not allowed to create cases on their own, even if they believe a law is unconstitutional, nor are they allowed to rule on hypothetical scenarios.

Almost all federal cases start in federal district courts, where motions are decided and trials held. The cases are then heard on appeal by the federal courts of appeal and then by the Supreme Court if four justices of the nine-member court decide to hear the case. Congress can limit the power of the appeals courts by changing the rules about which cases can be appealed. State cases that involve an issue of federal law can also be heard by the Supreme Court after the highest court in the state rules (or refuses to rule) in the case. The Supreme Court accepts only a small number of cases for review, typically around 80 cases each year. In a small number of lawsuits — those involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, or where a state is a party — the Supreme Court is the first court to hear the case.

The federal courts also have final say over guilt or innocence in federal criminal cases. A defendant in a criminal case, except impeachment, has a right to have his or her case heard by a jury in the state where the crime occurred.

 

[Freewill]

May I ask what difference it makes her reason?

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

freewill creates a straw man with a mischaracterization and then tears it down.

SCOTUS does not make law; it interprets it.

Article III says SCOTUS as original jurisdiction on the Constitution. What the court says is so unless it later changes its mind or an amendment is ratified.

 

[Seawytch]

The left, while vastly disappointed in the Citizens United ruling, don't claim the ruling isn't valid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Citizens is valid until SCOTUS overturns it or an amendment changes it.

One or both will happen no later than 2024.

 

[Syriusly]

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?

You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

I see you have't read the Constitution, particularly Article III.

Not sure your point or if you meant article III. But for you and those who thank you here is link to a discussion. No where does it say the SCOTUS makes law..

Nope- the Supreme Court doesn't make law- the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Citizens is valid until SCOTUS overturns it or an amendment changes it.

One or both will happen no later than 2024.

Agree it is valid- agree what it takes to invalidate it- doubt it will happen.

Too much money wants Citizens United the way it is to get it changed.

 

[Syriusly]

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law- there is no logical way to argue that they do.

Dred Scott was a horrible decision- the courts can make decisions that are wrong- but still valid.

Dred Scott was reversed by Constitutional Amendments- which is how our system works- if you disagree with a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, you can pursue a Constitutional Amendment changing the Constitution to correct that 'wrong'

 

[Seawytch]

Citizens is valid until SCOTUS overturns it or an amendment changes it.

One or both will happen no later than 2024.

Agree it is valid- agree what it takes to invalidate it- doubt it will happen.

Too much money wants Citizens United the way it is to get it changed.

Unfortunately true...but I'm more optimistic about it happening. I think it will be overturned and we will get the rampant, unchecked money out of our political system.

I think it will come through legislation.

 

[ogibillm]

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

no, you clearly hate the constitution. why else would you include in your rant the part about the justices being unelected, as if that somehow made them illegitimate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

May I ask what difference it makes her reason?

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?

You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

I see you have't read the Constitution, particularly Article III.

And Article VI.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizens is valid until SCOTUS overturns it or an amendment changes it.

One or both will happen no later than 2024.

Agree it is valid- agree what it takes to invalidate it- doubt it will happen.

Too much money wants Citizens United the way it is to get it changed.

Unfortunately true...but I'm more optimistic about it happening. I think it will be overturned and we will get the rampant, unchecked money out of our political system.

I think it will come through legislation.

True.

Citizens United provided lawmakers a kind of 'blueprint' as how to compose a law that would provide campaign finance reform without violating the First Amendment.

There's simply no political will to do the hard work necessary to get such a law passed.

 

[jillian]

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Read the 10th amendment. As its the States issuing such licenses.

States yes Feds no.
Supreme Court ruling just over ruled the States rights.

Now read the 14th amendment. Specifically the part about due process and equal protection.

Under laws yes.
Not marriage.
They were not equal under the laws.
The laws should have changed to help them become equal under the laws, not the Supreme Court that forced States to marry them.
An example would be the inheritance laws where same sex couples would have the same rights under those laws.

pssst... the court ruled. get over it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The Supreme Court did in fact follow the Constitution; Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are.

Moreover, it is completely illogical and ignorant to 'argue' that the Supreme Court 'made law'; anyone who advances such an 'argument' clearly has nothing but contempt for the Constitution, and is in fact a liar.

And the reference to Dred Scott is further evidence of your ignorance, failing as a false comparison fallacy, as the legal issues of each case were completely unrelated; indeed, the sophomoric notion that “the Supreme Court gets cases wrong” in no way 'mitigates' or 'undermines' the authority of the Court or the legitimacy of its rulings.

 

[Freewill]

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

no, you clearly hate the constitution. why else would you include in your rant the part about the justices being unelected, as if that somehow made them illegitimate.

Clearly sarcasm is a problem for you...and logic....and cogent thought.

 

[Freewill]

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The Supreme Court did in fact follow the Constitution; Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are.

Moreover, it is completely illogical and ignorant to 'argue' that the Supreme Court 'made law'; anyone who advances such an 'argument' clearly has nothing but contempt for the Constitution, and is in fact a liar.

And the reference to Dred Scott is further evidence of your ignorance, failing as a false comparison fallacy, as the legal issues of each case were completely unrelated; indeed, the sophomoric notion that “the Supreme Court gets cases wrong” in no way 'mitigates' or 'undermines' the authority of the Court or the legitimacy of its rulings.

Trying to have a discussion with you people certainly is trying.

The SCOTUS certainly had the authority to srike down laws banning gay marriage. BUT that does not make gay marriage legal, it should have struck down all marriage laws. Except those who had already changed. The SCOTUS not only made law they changed the definition of marriage.

Pointing out that the SCOTUS makes mistakes is exactly why I point it out. YOU like them making law in this case, but i seriously doubt you like it when the made corporations people. The SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not make law by fiat.

Gay marriage would have eventually been made legal and it would have been done correctly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's a question that came up on another thread which made me reflect a bit.

If Justice Kennedy had known in June of this year that before the leaves fell off the trees in the same year, that the LGBT cult would pressure a judge to jail a Christian for passively refusing to enable a "gay marriage"....would that have affected his vote?

Ostensibly, we can predict how that would've affected Ginsburg and Kagan's votes, since as the question was pending up to their Court of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage", the two of them were openly presiding over states as The Supreme Federal Last Word by peforming gay weddings on public display. We can then extrapolate that if they are willing to violate the Constitution so flagrantly at that level that they would also "look away" as threats of jailing Christians for not playing along were bounced around in their presence.

But Kennedy, he's a different bloke. And also maybe Sotomayer and Breyer. But for the more senior and sensible one who at least has not displayed arrogant public bias while the case was pending (in violation of Massey Coal 2009), this topic is about Kennedy mainly. You can weigh in also on Sotomayor and Breyer too. But I think we're all 100% in agreement on Ginsburg and Kagan not changing their votes if they knew...


So, if Kennedy had a crystal ball and saw Kim Davis sitting in jail less than 3 months after he released the June Opinion, would he have voted differently?

Discuss.

Kennedy was going to vote as he voted, without regard to the arguments presented or the potential consequences of the vote. Such is the nature of the lowly Prog. They exist to 'feel' and lack any means to reason objectively. None... .

If they had the means to reason soundly, the simple truth is, they wouldn't be Progs.