Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment Crime and Punishment Forum - For topics and discussions about crime, criminals, circumstances, and punishments


Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By Nwolfe35
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 4th, 2018, 10:48 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 131
A Narrow 7-2 Verdict?

When Libs lose a big one they call nine-to-zip narrow. In Roe v Wade 7 to 2 was a rout according to the baby butchers:

The Supreme Court sided with the Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding in a narrow ruling Monday.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution when it forced Jack Phillips to make a cake for a same-sex wedding he morally opposed under the state's public accommodations law.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the majority opinion said.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
Supreme Court sides with baker in same-sex wedding cake case
By Lydia Wheeler - 06/04/18 10:21 AM EDT

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390...x-wedding-case
I followed every one of those cases since the first one. Every case clearly defined Socialists in government trying to legislate love. Put aside the homosexual aspect of same-sex cases and ask yourself where judges got the authority to dictate behavior? They certainly did not get it from the U.S. Constitution.

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.
Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

Judges order Christians to work for ?gays?
I am as pleased as punch that Jack Phillips won for the rest of us. I would have been ecstatic had the High Court wiped out involuntary servitude:

VIII Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
XIII Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Had the Court ruled on involuntary servitude they would have knocked down one of the Democrat Party’s major pillars.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoye...-americans-buy
If forcing Americans to work for everyone who demands it ——even when they pay for the labor —— is not involuntary servitude I do not know what is.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 4th, 2018, 11:29 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,275
Learn what narrow means in legalistic talk.

It has nothing to do with the split of the court but the legal implications of the ruling. In this case the ruling covers only this specific situation and cannot be applied to other similar cases.
Thanks from Camelot
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old June 5th, 2018, 03:43 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Learn what narrow means in legalistic talk.

It has nothing to do with the split of the court but the legal implications of the ruling. In this case the ruling covers only this specific situation and cannot be applied to other similar cases.
To Nwolf35: I know exactly what liberals mean every time they lose a big one in their courts. Note that the Left’s media mouths are pushing the “narrow” narrative:

The left decried the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Monday that blasted a Colorado bureaucracy hostile to Christians, ruling Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips had a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual duo.

Establishment media emphasized the case was decided on “narrow” grounds, based on the hostility exhibited by state officials “toward the sincere religious beliefs” of Phillips.

But the ruling sent a wave of fear through liberal activists across the country, with reason, said talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.

The left is scared to death of this, and they’re out there saying, ‘Don’t worry. It’s very, very narrow. It’s a very narrow interpretation, and it’s not a constitutional interpretation, so don’t worry about.’ But they can’t stop worrying about it. CNN hasn’t stopped analyzing it, hasn’t stopped talking about it,” he said Monday.
Limbaugh: Court's 'narrow' cake ruling really 'a huge deal'
Posted By Bob Unruh On 06/04/2018 @ 8:19 pm

Limbaugh: Court?s ?narrow? cake ruling really ?a huge deal?
I repeat:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
When Libs lose a big one they call nine-to-zip narrow. In Roe v Wade 7 to 2 was a rout according to the baby butchers:
Incidentally, in 2013 I posted my first message on involuntary servitude triggered by same sex demands. After more cases were reported I said that those cases were the most important cases the Supreme Court will ever decide if one of them ever gets to High Court. One case finally got there and Libs are going bonkers. Now it looks like Barronelle Stutzman might get there, too.


Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington | Arlene's Flowers v. Ingersoll
In truth, I hope the Nifty Nine finally rules on involuntary servitude. At the same time I dread the wrong decision. This is why I fear a second ruling. I cannot determine if ruling against involuntary servitude violates the Court’s golden rule:

NO SUPREME COURT WILL EVER RULE TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S REVENUES.

I often said that predicting the outcome of any Supreme Court case involving tax dollars, and/or Wall Street’s income, is a walk in the park. I am an average bumpkin with no special knowledge of the Constitution, yet I can accurately predict the decision in every case involving tax dollars.

NOTE: Repealing the ACA did not stand a chance when it got to the High Court.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was a snap for most Americans BEFORE Chief Justice John Roberts said it was a constitutional tax. Roberts must have meant midgets when he said this at his confirmation hearing:


“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me, but if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.”
Roberts clearly voted for the big guy —— the federal government —— when he abandoned the Constitution in order to save Hillarycare II because every decision involving tax revenues must go against the little guy.

Finally, Supreme Court justices are creatures of the federal government. The High Court’s balance matters not a whit in rock bottom cases. The justices may decide to add involuntary servitude (behavior) to the Court’s golden rule.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 6th, 2018, 03:12 AM   #4
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
When Libs lose a big one they call nine-to-zip narrow. In Roe v Wade 7 to 2 was a rout according to the baby butchers:

The Supreme Court sided with the Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding in a narrow ruling Monday.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution when it forced Jack Phillips to make a cake for a same-sex wedding he morally opposed under the state's public accommodations law.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the majority opinion said.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
Supreme Court sides with baker in same-sex wedding cake case
By Lydia Wheeler - 06/04/18 10:21 AM EDT

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390...x-wedding-case
I followed every one of those cases since the first one. Every case clearly defined Socialists in government trying to legislate love. Put aside the homosexual aspect of same-sex cases and ask yourself where judges got the authority to dictate behavior? They certainly did not get it from the U.S. Constitution.

I posted numerous messages about involuntary servitude cases since ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY first hit the news:


The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the owners of a photography studio who refused, because of their Christians beliefs, to serve a lesbian couple.
Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Court rules photographers must violate religious faith
Published: 08/22/2013 at 4:10 PM
BOB UNRUH

Judges order Christians to work for ?gays?
I am as pleased as punch that Jack Phillips won for the rest of us. I would have been ecstatic had the High Court wiped out involuntary servitude:

VIII Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
XIII Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Had the Court ruled on involuntary servitude they would have knocked down one of the Democrat Party’s major pillars.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoye...-americans-buy
If forcing Americans to work for everyone who demands it ——even when they pay for the labor —— is not involuntary servitude I do not know what is.
A "narrow decision" is legal terminology which addresses ONLY THE PLAINTIFF in that particular case: aka: the result of the trial will have no impact on any other judicial decisions.

Hilarious how the rightwing snowflakes will latch onto anything to claim "bias", frequently through their own ignorance of what things mean.
GluteusMaximus is online now  
Old June 8th, 2018, 01:00 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
If forcing Americans to work for everyone who demands it ——even when they pay for the labor —— is not involuntary servitude I do not know what is.
It will never end until the SCOTUS rules against involuntary servitude:

Three judges in an Arizona court, Lawrence Winthrop, Jennifer Campbell, and Paul McMurdie, have announced they are comfortable with the city of Phoenix forcing Christian artists to violate their faith and endorse same-sex marriage.

The announcement came in their decision, from their Arizona Court of Appeals, affirming a Phoenix ordinance that mandates that Christian company owners must support and endorse same-sex marriage with their products and artistry.
Court OK with forcing Christians to violate faith
Posted By Bob Unruh On 06/07/2018 @ 3:00 pm

Court OK with forcing Christians to violate faith
Flanders111 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Crime and Punishment

Tags
narrow, verdict



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zimmerman verdict TNVolunteer73 Opinion Polls 116 August 9th, 2013 09:54 PM
Obama Re-Racialized The Zimmerman Verdict excalibur Current Events 1 July 19th, 2013 10:09 PM
Does Natural Science Encourage a Narrow Mind? coberst Philosophy 5 June 19th, 2010 07:12 AM
Saddam Verdict: Death by Hanging RidinHighSpeeds Current Events 2 November 5th, 2006 12:58 PM
The Verdict is in: 2006 Election is about Iraq intangible child Politicians 29 August 24th, 2006 05:01 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.