Scotus nails one 9-0

[Maggot]

And some of their comments were even stronger regarding the protection of religious liberties.

Supreme Court unanimously upholds religious liberty over ...​

https://theconversation.com › supreme-court-unanimou...



2 days ago — The Supreme Court has tended to side in favor of religious rights. ... over LGBTQ rights – and nods to a bigger win for conservatives ahead.

 

[NoDopes]

Is this one of those pay backs that refs make after a bad call.. i.e. refusing to hear election fraud? Politicians and SC judges are trading rulings like baseball cards. ACA... It's a tax. Good grief, it's like celebrating a morning when your spouse doesn't beat you.

 

[Maggot]

Is this one of those pay backs that refs make after a bad call.. i.e. refusing to hear election fraud? Politicians and SC judges are trading rulings like baseball cards. ACA... It's a tax. Good grief, it's like celebrating a morning when your spouse doesn't beat you.

Though, here, Ill likely find myself in the minority, Id disagree. I dont think they had precedent in the election. It wasnt their duty.

They did well here, if you bothered to read any of it.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Is this one of those pay backs that refs make after a bad call.. i.e. refusing to hear election fraud? Politicians and SC judges are trading rulings like baseball cards. ACA... It's a tax. Good grief, it's like celebrating a morning when your spouse doesn't beat you.

Geez man, does your wife beat you?

 

[...]

wow, thank you SC for acknowledging our innate rights protected under the 1st amendment.....so glad we had you around to read plainly written English to the rest of us.

so glad we have you around to half ass your jobs now that Trump is no longer in office.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

These same shit stains ruled against the church when it was the government shutting them down.
They refused to hear the kenyan care case again.
They refused to hear anything about the election.
They refuse...... Ahhh fuck them lawyers!

 

[...]

Though, here, Ill likely find myself in the minority, Id disagree. I dont think they had precedent in the election. It wasnt their duty.

is that not the purpose of the SC, to set that precedent?

they didnt even hear the details of the case, and 1/2 the judges recused themselves.....if they went through the whole deal, and found Texas' claims didnt hold up, that would be one thing, but to not even hear the case??

i mean, of course there is no precedent for this, no one has even alleged large scale voter fraud in court before.

if the president is responsible in part for enacting federal policy over the states, and one state doesnt follow its own election laws, as written, its really not a big stretch to see how that could impact another state......its not like we are talking about state tax law here.

more importantly, if the rolls were reversed, and in 2016 TX didnt follow its own laws and used that to get Trump elected, do you think no other states would sue TX?......do you think the SC would refuse to hear that case?

 

[...]

if thats the precedent they want to set, TX and every other red state should just come out and say "we arent counting Democrat votes, suck a dick".......$100 says the SC doesnt decline to hear that case.....

 

[NoDopes]

The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

So, the US AG would have to ask for hearing. But they were in on it. Guess next failsafe is the 2a. Those framers.. smart little bastards.

 

[...]

In that case you'd have actual parties with demonstrable harm done to them, thus standing.

but ignoring your voting laws, and voting irregularities that unanimously benefit one candidate isnt evidence of demonstrable harm towards the other party?

you cant have your cake and eat it too here.

 

[BLEE]

And some of their comments were even stronger regarding the protection of religious liberties.

Supreme Court unanimously upholds religious liberty over ...​

https://theconversation.com › supreme-court-unanimou...



2 days ago — The Supreme Court has tended to side in favor of religious rights. ... over LGBTQ rights – and nods to a bigger win for conservatives ahead.

It's a Machiavalian trick, an appeasement, a bone thrown to Conservatives, to make us think we are represented and there is still a modicum of respect for the Constitution. It means, get ready for a royal screwing in the near future.

 

[Maggot]

It's a Machiavalian trick, an appeasement, a bone thrown to Conservatives, to make us think we are represented and there is still a modicum of respect for the Constitution. It means, get ready for a royal screwing in the near future.

We shall see.

 

[anon]

Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

On January 6th, I sat down in front of the computer to watch the debate in the House regarding the various states that disregarded the US Constitution in the conduct of their Federal elections. Unfortunately, it was preempted by that distraction. The debate has yet to occur.

It seems to my simple mind, that all states that faithfully complied with the Constitutional requirements for their Federal elections are aggrieved by those states that did not.

 

[hlee]

is that not the purpose of the SC, to set that precedent?

Actually, no. The SC is more like the tie breaking vote when the lower courts don’t agree. If everyone is in agreement, they don’t hear the case, even if the lower courts are “wrong.” But, if there are differing opinions in the district courts, then the SC is more likely to hear the case.

 

[anon]

Marbury v. Madison (1803): “The province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

One of the best ways to disenfranchise an individual is to manufacture votes or miscount them.

 

[XLR308]

Geez man, does your wife beat you?

If i was the violent type i would take some mutual combat sex
I dated a Brazilian girl before i met my wife that was like that, as in you better bring your A game or you were gonna get owned bitch