Judge Jackson: "Well, Senator. That is . . . the nature of a right." Great words. I wish she actually believed it.

[Seymour Flops]

The exchange was over same-sex marriage:

Senator Cornyn: . . . no state can pass a law, that conflicts with the Supreme Court edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith, and what the federal government says is the law of the land?

Judge Jackson: Well, Senator. That is . . . the nature of a right. That when there is a right . . . it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if . . . uh, people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Spot on. That is exactly the nature of a right, whether enumerated or not. If I have a right to bear arms, that right is not trumped by your religious belief that they have some kind of bad "mojo" that will cause me to kill an innocent person. If I have a right to free speech, it does not cease to exist if you say that your religion is offended by what I say.

Etc.

Would that any statist of any stripe ever actually believed that. Imagine the left, stripped of their ability to take away rights based on the religions of socialism, environmentalism, and statism. Imagine the right, unable to take away rights based on Protestantism and Catholicism.

The sad truth is that when she is on the Supreme Court, Judge Jackson will base all of her votes on her religious beliefs that stem from the religion of American Liberalism. Just as all four dissenting opinions in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (that struck down laws against same-sex marriage) were based on Christianity, more or less openly.

We were founded as a nation in which people could mind their own business without being bothered by other people who make everyone's business their business. We've gotten so far away from that, that I'm not seeing a path back.

 

[Moonglow]

The exchange was over same-sex marriage:

Senator Cornyn: . . . no state can pass a law, that conflicts with the Supreme Court edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn't that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith, and what the federal government says is the law of the land?

Judge Jackson: Well, Senator. That is . . . the nature of a right. That when there is a right . . . it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if . . . uh, people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Spot on. That is exactly the nature of a right, whether enumerated or not. If I have a right to bear arms, that right is not trumped by your religious belief that they have some kind of bad "mojo" that will cause me to kill an innocent person. If I have a right to free speech, it does not cease to exist if you say that your religion is offended by what I say.

Etc.

Would that any statist of any stripe ever actually believed that. Imagine the left, stripped of their ability to take away rights based on the religions of socialism, environmentalism, and statism. Imagine the right, unable to take away rights based on Protestantism and Catholicism.

The sad truth is that when she is on the Supreme Court, Judge Jackson will base all of her votes on her religious beliefs that stem from the religion of American Liberalism. Just as all four dissenting opinions in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (that struck down laws against same-sex marriage) were based on Christianity, more or less openly.

We were founded as a nation in which people could mind their own business without being bothered by other people who make everyone's business their business. We've gotten so far away from that, that I'm not seeing a path back.

your case is weak considering her Christian proclivities.

 

[Moonglow]

We were founded as a nation in which people could mind their own business without being bothered by other people who make everyone's business their business

I am guessing you missed the part where slavery was legal.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Legal homo marriage mandates acquiescence. That’s not a right.

 

[Moonglow]

Legal homo marriage mandates acquiescence. That’s not a right.

Federal civil rights law in the U.S. stems from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Using this standard, marriage has long been established as a fundamental right of all Americans.
and the 14th amendment allows gays or lesbians or whomever to enjoy that right.

 

[Seymour Flops]

your case is weak considering her Christian proclivities.

How so?

Suppose she's a Christian who believes that recognizing same-sex marriage is the duty of any Christian nation. She is using her religion to make the right decision to recognize same-sex marriage. But she will next use her religion to make a series of wrong decisions, such as banning drilling for oil in the U.S., because the bible says to be good stewards of the earth, or banning the death penalty because the bible says thou shalt not kill.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Legal homo marriage mandates acquiescence. That’s not a right.

What have you been acquiescing to since that ruling?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I am guessing you missed the part where slavery was legal.

No, I believe that slavery being recognized by the constitution as a "right" for the slave owners is what doomed the nation to never truly be free. Worshipping the constitution, is a religion also.

But the intent to create a free nation was there, just subverted by the Robert Byrds of the day.

 

[Moonglow]

How so?

Suppose she's a Christian who believes that recognizing same-sex marriage is the duty of any Christian nation. She is using her religion to make the right decision to recognize same-sex marriage. But she will next use her religion to make a series of wrong decisions, such as banning drilling for oil in the U.S., because the bible says to be good stewards of the earth, or banning the death penalty because the bible says thou shalt not kill.

It is a fundamental right that you want to deny US citizens...You despot.
In case you didn't notice she is just one person and there are five more...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What have you been acquiescing to since that ruling?

Legal homo marriage provides tax breaks. Everyone else has to foot that bill. It also allows for equal opportunity for adoption which leads to children being granted adoption into unstructured family situations.
It’s not really about any individual liberty.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Legal homo marriage provides tax breaks. Everyone else has to foot that bill. It also allows for equal opportunity for adoption which leads to children being granted adoption into unstructured family situations.
It’s not really about any individual liberty.

Then the solution is to end "tax breaks" and other "benifits" for being married or anything else. Better still is to understand that taxng us at XX% but with "breaks" for approved behavior isn't a benefit.

Marriage makes a family situation more structured not less.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is a fundamental right that you want to deny US citizens...You despot.
In case you didn't notice she is just one person and there are five more...

What right are you talking about?

 

[Moonglow]

What right are you talking about?

Well let's see, the OP is about this person going through a confirmation hearing as a supreme court nominee, does that help remind you?

 

[Moonglow]

Legal homo marriage provides tax breaks. Everyone else has to foot that bill. It also allows for equal opportunity for adoption which leads to children being granted adoption into unstructured family situations.
It’s not really about any individual liberty.

How do you foot the bill for homosexuals splitting community property? Did you keep the receipts?

 

[22lcidw]

It is a fundamental right that you want to deny US citizens...You despot.
In case you didn't notice she is just one person and there are five more...

Repubs need to use the Prog handbook now. they have given the Progs near everything they wanted over the decades with the fraud RINOS cushioning their decisions. And since there are many citizens who do not want to go to war, they are restrained right now. But the D.C. undead are an addicted species getting their way to play their games of life and death and hide the problems the caused.

 

[Moonglow]

Repubs need to use the Prog handbook now. they have given the Progs near everything they wanted over the decades with the fraud RINOS cushioning their decisions. And since there are many citizens who do not want to go to war, they are restrained right now. But the D.C. undead are an addicted species getting their way to play their games of life and death and hide the problems the caused.

They use the same book as the progs so you can call them progs also.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well let's see, the OP is about this person going through a confirmation hearing as a supreme court nominee, does that help remind you?

The OP was about affirming Same sex marriage as a right and how Jackson was spot on about it. So your saying that I want to take away that fundamental run this nonsensical.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Then the solution is to end "tax breaks" and other "benifits" for being married or anything else. Better still is to understand that taxng us at XX% but with "breaks" for approved behavior isn't a benefit.

Marriage makes a family situation more structured not less.

Homos can’t procreate, heteros can and that’s why legal marriage was invented.
Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either. Data supports this.
So if homos can’t raise kids, tax breaks aren’t necessary and legal homo marriage is moot.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Homos can’t procreate, heteros can and that’s why legal marriage was invented.
Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of either. Data supports this.
So if homos can’t raise kids, tax breaks aren’t necessary and legal homo marriage is moot.

A kid is going to be better off adopted by two same-sex parents than bouncing around in the foster system, which is so riddled with abuse that it should be considered an ongoing human trafficking racket, or in some third world country.

 

[scruffy]

Hey, what happened to the other thread? It's gone! It was just starting to get interesting.