Supreme Court Says Church Bans UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean
Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.
We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
  3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
  4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
  5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.
I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.
That can be handled now through legislation, per Article 1 Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.​
Every Lawmaker, federal or state, already has this power, it simply needs to be exercised. I personally have a difficult time seeing any greater legislative need and would support the refusal of any legislature, Federal or State, to entertain any business prior to ensuring auditable, verifiable election integrity.
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
4,712
Points
1,940
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.
Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".

I pity biddable fools who think reality is formed by them wishing really hard.
Fake News. Those aren't the critical issues that the Court ruled on.

GAVIN GETS SLAPPED DOWN BY CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Golden State’s chief executive has issued anti-Covid regulations that are the most blatantly discriminatory against Christians in the nation.

Late Thursday, California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp waved the red flag, specifically citing the Supreme Court’s recent slapdown of New York Gov. Andrew "Grandma Killer" Cuomo’s similarly bigoted regulations aimed at Jewish and Catholic gatherings in Brooklyn.

It takes time for Supreme Court precedents to be applied as widely as needed, but this decision shows that Justice Alito’s efforts on behalf of the First Amendment and religious freedom are bearing fruit rather quickly.

California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp delivered a stinging rebuke of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been caught red-handed violating the rules he has laid down for the State, just as the entire San Francisco City Government has, as well as Nancy Pelosi, late Thursday, ruling against “all Covid-19 restrictions that fail to treat houses of worship equal to the favored class of entities.

The ruling came in the case of Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom, a suit brought by attorneys for the Thomas More Society on behalf of the priest and multiple Catholic parishes that were barred from holding indoor masses even as big-box stores like Walmart, movie production houses, bus stations and numerous other businesses were exempted.

The judge singled out Newsom’s recently issued “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and “Regional Stay at Home Order” as failing to satisfy the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom of worship and practice because they aren’t applied equally and in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve an essential public interest.

“In this case, the restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ because they assign entities into disparate classifications, which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities,” Pelskamp wrote.​

“For example, the ‘Purple Tier’ of the ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy,’ and the most recent ‘Regional Stay at Home Order,’ both impose a total ban on indoor religious services, while simultaneously permitting a wide range of secular indoor activities to varying degrees.​

“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.​

“It is important to note that almost all of the entities that are allowed to host indoor operations do not engage in activity that is constitutionally protected, whereas houses of worship do.”​

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.​

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”​

Amen! Your Honor!
Not the final word, I stand by my comments:

Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
You and Gavin lost, deal with it.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
49,444
Reaction score
11,435
Points
2,030
Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean
Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.
We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
  3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
  4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
  5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.
I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.
We need to all vote in person with a picture ID and evidence of where we live

so no more absentee or mail-in ballots

and use paper ballots that can be audited
...True, but it's still going to be a matter of debate how you balance across-the-board federal election requirements with state sovereignty. At least, I would hope it's a matter of debate. I'm not interested in rushing headlong into setting more precedent for federal usurpation of power and micromanagement that the Democrats can then use to demand that every state has to be just like NY and CA...
This is an interesting point. While our Constitution guarantees our fundamental rights, as originally drafted, it do not speak clearly to who would have enforcement power. This was corrected by the 14th amendment which made it clear that the Federal Government does have the power to secure individual rights, even against State encroachment. For example, for the 70 years prior to the 14th amendment, if a State majority decided to enslave a minority population, it wasn't clear that the Federal Government was empowered to secure the rights of the minority population against this gross encroachment by the state. Now it is perfectly clear, and the Federal government does secure our Liberty against even State encroachment.
True, but the reason it's a balancing act is that the states exist to act as a bulwark against FEDERAL encroachment. The whole point of our system is not to put all our eggs into ANY one basket. Any entity that has the sole power to protect our liberties also has the sole power to fail in protecting them, and leave us with nowhere else to go for help.

We need to make it clear that the states do NOT have unlimited power to do as they please and ignore laws as they please, but the federal government ALSO does not have unlimited power to control the states. States have sovereignty, but they are also a part of a larger nation, and have responsibilities to the other states.

... On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing". Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will. I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire. The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about...
Yes. I think the awareness of just how flawed our election systems are, snuck up on us to a certain extent, even though the realization has enough support that with greater vigilance we could have realized this some time ago. Once an illegal ballot is in the counting box it's nearly impossible for a Court to identify it and remove it. At the point that the Court got this I think it was too late to fix and that any attempts by the Court to "fix" it, would ultimately cause more damage that a Biden presidency until 2024. Let's face it. Had the Court attempted to undo the election, our cities would be on fire right now. The time to fix these systems was prior to the voting taking place, and the GOP failed on this front, both at the State Legislature level and the Federal Congress, both entities, unlike the Court, directly tasked by the Constitution to ensure election integrity.

Next time you hear any Republican Legislator, either on the State or Federal Level complaining about our election system, ask them for a copy of the bill they have submitted to remedy our voting practices. Like the song says: "A little less talk, and lot more action."
What can I say? It's human nature to get complacent and apathetic. And fundamentally decent people tend to be naive about what indecent people will and won't do. The Democrats planned out and timed their mail-in voting scam perfectly. No one saw it coming ahead of time, and there wasn't enough time - or enough systemic roadblocks - to stop it.

In fairness to the GOP, many of them have been fighting to clean up our elections for a while. Admittedly, most of that was focused on preventing people from casting votes who shouldn't be. I don't think they, any more than anyone else, saw THIS farrago coming.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
49,444
Reaction score
11,435
Points
2,030
Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean
Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.
We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
  3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
  4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
  5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.
I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.
That can be handled now through legislation, per Article 1 Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.​
Every Lawmaker, federal or state, already has this power, it simply needs to be exercised. I personally have a difficult time seeing any greater legislative need and would support the refusal of any legislature, Federal or State, to entertain any business prior to ensuring auditable, verifiable election integrity.
The problem with that is that it assumes the willingness on the part of all state governments to actually exercise the power and clean things up. Manifestly, we have states which don't give a rat's furry ass about their own laws, the US Constitution, or their obligations to the rest of us to conduct clean and fair elections.

We need to put some thought into what options the United States has when individual states go completely rogue.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
5,298
Reaction score
2,911
Points
940
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.
Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".

I pity biddable fools who think reality is formed by them wishing really hard.
Fake News. Those aren't the critical issues that the Court ruled on.

GAVIN GETS SLAPPED DOWN BY CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Golden State’s chief executive has issued anti-Covid regulations that are the most blatantly discriminatory against Christians in the nation.

Late Thursday, California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp waved the red flag, specifically citing the Supreme Court’s recent slapdown of New York Gov. Andrew "Grandma Killer" Cuomo’s similarly bigoted regulations aimed at Jewish and Catholic gatherings in Brooklyn.

It takes time for Supreme Court precedents to be applied as widely as needed, but this decision shows that Justice Alito’s efforts on behalf of the First Amendment and religious freedom are bearing fruit rather quickly.

California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp delivered a stinging rebuke of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been caught red-handed violating the rules he has laid down for the State, just as the entire San Francisco City Government has, as well as Nancy Pelosi, late Thursday, ruling against “all Covid-19 restrictions that fail to treat houses of worship equal to the favored class of entities.

The ruling came in the case of Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom, a suit brought by attorneys for the Thomas More Society on behalf of the priest and multiple Catholic parishes that were barred from holding indoor masses even as big-box stores like Walmart, movie production houses, bus stations and numerous other businesses were exempted.

The judge singled out Newsom’s recently issued “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and “Regional Stay at Home Order” as failing to satisfy the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom of worship and practice because they aren’t applied equally and in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve an essential public interest.

“In this case, the restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ because they assign entities into disparate classifications, which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities,” Pelskamp wrote.​

“For example, the ‘Purple Tier’ of the ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy,’ and the most recent ‘Regional Stay at Home Order,’ both impose a total ban on indoor religious services, while simultaneously permitting a wide range of secular indoor activities to varying degrees.​

“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.​

“It is important to note that almost all of the entities that are allowed to host indoor operations do not engage in activity that is constitutionally protected, whereas houses of worship do.”​

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.​

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”​

Amen! Your Honor!
Not the final word, I stand by my comments:

Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
You and Gavin lost, deal with it.
All of us who may come in contact with "covidiots" and "simps' will lose [two new words posted in TIME (12/21 issue). Buy a copy if want them defined. All of the Americans will suffer longer shut downs and more infections and deaths by these two sets.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean
Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.
We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
  3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
  4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
  5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.
I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.
That can be handled now through legislation, per Article 1 Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.​
Every Lawmaker, federal or state, already has this power, it simply needs to be exercised. I personally have a difficult time seeing any greater legislative need and would support the refusal of any legislature, Federal or State, to entertain any business prior to ensuring auditable, verifiable election integrity.
The problem with that is that it assumes the willingness on the part of all state governments to actually exercise the power and clean things up. Manifestly, we have states which don't give a rat's furry ass about their own laws, the US Constitution, or their obligations to the rest of us to conduct clean and fair elections.

We need to put some thought into what options the United States has when individual states go completely rogue.
Yup.

Article 1 Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

It's time!
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
1,772
Points
1,940
Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean
Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.
We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
  3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
  4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
  5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.
I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.
That can be handled now through legislation, per Article 1 Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.​
Every Lawmaker, federal or state, already has this power, it simply needs to be exercised. I personally have a difficult time seeing any greater legislative need and would support the refusal of any legislature, Federal or State, to entertain any business prior to ensuring auditable, verifiable election integrity.
The problem with that is that it assumes the willingness on the part of all state governments to actually exercise the power and clean things up. Manifestly, we have states which don't give a rat's furry ass about their own laws, the US Constitution, or their obligations to the rest of us to conduct clean and fair elections.

We need to put some thought into what options the United States has when individual states go completely rogue.
Yup.

Article 1 Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

It's time!
Drive the insane libs even MORE insane, if that is possible.
Imagine the riots. Destroy and burn to get people to join your insanity, right?
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
26,859
Reaction score
5,373
Points
280
Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean
Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.
We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:
  1. Balanced Budget
  2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
  3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
  4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
  5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.
I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.
We need to all vote in person with a picture ID and evidence of where we live

so no more absentee or mail-in ballots

and use paper ballots that can be audited
...True, but it's still going to be a matter of debate how you balance across-the-board federal election requirements with state sovereignty. At least, I would hope it's a matter of debate. I'm not interested in rushing headlong into setting more precedent for federal usurpation of power and micromanagement that the Democrats can then use to demand that every state has to be just like NY and CA...
This is an interesting point. While our Constitution guarantees our fundamental rights, as originally drafted, it do not speak clearly to who would have enforcement power. This was corrected by the 14th amendment which made it clear that the Federal Government does have the power to secure individual rights, even against State encroachment. For example, for the 70 years prior to the 14th amendment, if a State majority decided to enslave a minority population, it wasn't clear that the Federal Government was empowered to secure the rights of the minority population against this gross encroachment by the state. Now it is perfectly clear, and the Federal government does secure our Liberty against even State encroachment.
... On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing". Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will. I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire. The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about...
Yes. I think the awareness of just how flawed our election systems are, snuck up on us to a certain extent, even though the realization has enough support that with greater vigilance we could have realized this some time ago. Once an illegal ballot is in the counting box it's nearly impossible for a Court to identify it and remove it. At the point that the Court got this I think it was too late to fix and that any attempts by the Court to "fix" it, would ultimately cause more damage that a Biden presidency until 2024. Let's face it. Had the Court attempted to undo the election, our cities would be on fire right now. The time to fix these systems was prior to the voting taking place, and the GOP failed on this front, both at the State Legislature level and the Federal Congress, both entities, unlike the Court, directly tasked by the Constitution to ensure election integrity.

Next time you hear any Republican Legislator, either on the State or Federal Level complaining about our election system, ask them for a copy of the bill they have submitted to remedy our voting practices. Like the song says: "A little less talk, and lot more action."
Fearing a rebellion is ridiculous, and it is exactly how we got to where we are in this country now. How many times have we seen Republicans tow the line for the establishment when the pressure is on ???? Way to many times IMHO.

How many times have we seen foolishness, and then the apologies come quickly afterwards ??? Way to many times in my opinion. It shows terrible weakness, and worse it shows outright cowardess on our representatives part's.

How is it that these people get elected over and over again ??? Could be that election fraud has been built in for years, but seeing that America has had a belly full of it now, this election became front and center.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
21,347
Reaction score
14,804
Points
1,365
How is it that these people get elected over and over again ??? Could be that election fraud has been built in for years, but seeing that America has had a belly full of it now, this election became front and center.
In the case of elected republicans at the federal and state level, they dont have mobs of people, mostly young, at their disposal to riot in the streets for their issues.

contrary to what the lying lib media would have us believe

its been reported that justice roberts was practically hysterical trying to convince the other members of the high court not to take the Texas voter fraud case because he feared the reaction of democrat street thugs

there is a system in washington that gives great power to the speaker of the house and senate majority leader and serves to intimidate individual members of congress to do as they are told

which helps explain why the republican party was so cool to trump when he got elected president

Speaker ryan in the house was a corrupt inside washington swamp rat and he wanted nothing to do with trump

so the trump agenda voted for by 74 million plus voters was largely stalled

it even helps explain why voter fraud is so easy for democrats to get away with
 
Last edited:

Thevolunteerwino

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
256
Reaction score
127
Points
143
I am glad someone in this coumtry has the balls to fight for our right to hather together if we want and not be subject to a marshall.law police state type lifestyle. C'mon people, We are not children.
Seems the Church because of its power has the govt in a corner on this one.
I am just glad there are so many of religous organizations that the govt cant fight back.
Thank you Christians. You are awesome!
I dont have to believe in everything your doctrines possess to appteciate you having the guts to do where others in this country have caved in under pressure and joined the ranks of the corrupt and unethical simply to make money or friends. Kudos!
I think I will walk into one of these churches this weekend. Give a donation. And thank them personally. Haven't been in one for years..
Who is Marshall Law
I believe a second cousin of Manuel Labor
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
5,298
Reaction score
2,911
Points
940
Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!
Common sense is not common and in this case senseless.
 

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
4,712
Points
1,940
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.
Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".

I pity biddable fools who think reality is formed by them wishing really hard.
Fake News. Those aren't the critical issues that the Court ruled on.

GAVIN GETS SLAPPED DOWN BY CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Golden State’s chief executive has issued anti-Covid regulations that are the most blatantly discriminatory against Christians in the nation.

Late Thursday, California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp waved the red flag, specifically citing the Supreme Court’s recent slapdown of New York Gov. Andrew "Grandma Killer" Cuomo’s similarly bigoted regulations aimed at Jewish and Catholic gatherings in Brooklyn.

It takes time for Supreme Court precedents to be applied as widely as needed, but this decision shows that Justice Alito’s efforts on behalf of the First Amendment and religious freedom are bearing fruit rather quickly.

California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp delivered a stinging rebuke of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been caught red-handed violating the rules he has laid down for the State, just as the entire San Francisco City Government has, as well as Nancy Pelosi, late Thursday, ruling against “all Covid-19 restrictions that fail to treat houses of worship equal to the favored class of entities.

The ruling came in the case of Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom, a suit brought by attorneys for the Thomas More Society on behalf of the priest and multiple Catholic parishes that were barred from holding indoor masses even as big-box stores like Walmart, movie production houses, bus stations and numerous other businesses were exempted.

The judge singled out Newsom’s recently issued “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and “Regional Stay at Home Order” as failing to satisfy the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom of worship and practice because they aren’t applied equally and in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve an essential public interest.

“In this case, the restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ because they assign entities into disparate classifications, which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities,” Pelskamp wrote.​

“For example, the ‘Purple Tier’ of the ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy,’ and the most recent ‘Regional Stay at Home Order,’ both impose a total ban on indoor religious services, while simultaneously permitting a wide range of secular indoor activities to varying degrees.​

“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.​

“It is important to note that almost all of the entities that are allowed to host indoor operations do not engage in activity that is constitutionally protected, whereas houses of worship do.”​

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.​

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”​

Amen! Your Honor!
Not the final word, I stand by my comments:

Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
You and Gavin lost, deal with it.
All of us who may come in contact with "covidiots" and "simps' will lose [two new words posted in TIME (12/21 issue). Buy a copy if want them defined. All of the Americans will suffer longer shut downs and more infections and deaths by these two sets.
You and Gavin lost, deal with it. Have you asked Gavin why he doesn't wear his mask or social distance at his dinners in NAPA?
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
34,685
Reaction score
10,867
Points
1,410
Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!
but there is no court ruling on indoor C19 regulations
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
5,298
Reaction score
2,911
Points
940
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.
Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".

I pity biddable fools who think reality is formed by them wishing really hard.
Fake News. Those aren't the critical issues that the Court ruled on.

GAVIN GETS SLAPPED DOWN BY CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Golden State’s chief executive has issued anti-Covid regulations that are the most blatantly discriminatory against Christians in the nation.

Late Thursday, California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp waved the red flag, specifically citing the Supreme Court’s recent slapdown of New York Gov. Andrew "Grandma Killer" Cuomo’s similarly bigoted regulations aimed at Jewish and Catholic gatherings in Brooklyn.

It takes time for Supreme Court precedents to be applied as widely as needed, but this decision shows that Justice Alito’s efforts on behalf of the First Amendment and religious freedom are bearing fruit rather quickly.

California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp delivered a stinging rebuke of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been caught red-handed violating the rules he has laid down for the State, just as the entire San Francisco City Government has, as well as Nancy Pelosi, late Thursday, ruling against “all Covid-19 restrictions that fail to treat houses of worship equal to the favored class of entities.

The ruling came in the case of Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom, a suit brought by attorneys for the Thomas More Society on behalf of the priest and multiple Catholic parishes that were barred from holding indoor masses even as big-box stores like Walmart, movie production houses, bus stations and numerous other businesses were exempted.

The judge singled out Newsom’s recently issued “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and “Regional Stay at Home Order” as failing to satisfy the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom of worship and practice because they aren’t applied equally and in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve an essential public interest.

“In this case, the restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ because they assign entities into disparate classifications, which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities,” Pelskamp wrote.​

“For example, the ‘Purple Tier’ of the ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy,’ and the most recent ‘Regional Stay at Home Order,’ both impose a total ban on indoor religious services, while simultaneously permitting a wide range of secular indoor activities to varying degrees.​

“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.​

“It is important to note that almost all of the entities that are allowed to host indoor operations do not engage in activity that is constitutionally protected, whereas houses of worship do.”​

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.​

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”​

Amen! Your Honor!
Not the final word, I stand by my comments:

Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.
You and Gavin lost, deal with it.
All of us who may come in contact with "covidiots" and "simps' will lose [two new words posted in TIME (12/21 issue). Buy a copy if want them defined. All of the Americans will suffer longer shut downs and more infections and deaths by these two sets.
You and Gavin lost, deal with it. Have you asked Gavin why he doesn't wear his mask or social distance at his dinners in NAPA?
I have not asked "Gavin", why do you ask? Have you asked Trump why he didn't wear a mask or respect social distancing for months at rallies and in events in the White House and the Rose Garden, events which exposed a large number of his supporters which in fact infected some of them and passed the infection on?

Have you asked the Governors of nine states who have not asked people to wear masks and respect social distancing why? Or are you one of the stupid biddable set which believes putting a mask on takes away your right to freedom of expression.?
 

MadChemist

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
294
Points
140
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.
That isn’t really what it said. And the court doesn’t generally rule on moot matters. But that’s what happens when you stack the court with christifacists
What did it really say ? Please share.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
1,772
Points
1,940
Political Spectrum.jpg


Leftists are America's fascists. More government, more control, poorer people, stupider people.
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
5,096
Reaction score
2,419
Points
290
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.
That isn’t really what it said. And the court doesn’t generally rule on moot matters. But that’s what happens when you stack the court with christifacists
1. The United States Constitution over-rules any city, county or state laws.
2. First Amendment: (in part) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
This supersedes not only Congress, but also, Governors, State Legislators, Mayors, or Town Councils. There's nothing Fascist about it.
You and your ilk, spew the words, Fascist, Nazi and Racist around so much, even on things that have nothing to do with any of it. Using them frequently in all matters you disagree with, completely diminishes their impact. You just make an embarrassment of yourself.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top