A farmer taking a wagon load of corn to market came upon an Indian maiden who asked for a ride. He said he would give her a ride for sex. After a bit of collective bargaining they decided a bushel of corn was a fair price. When the the farmer climbed down from his wagon and dropped his britches the Indian maiden laid down on her stomach. Before the farmer could object, the maiden said: “Front hole money hole. Back hole cornhole.”
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized sodomy. Ginsburg voted with the majority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Opinion_of_the_Court
If Ginsburg is still on the Court when the votes are counted there is no doubt she will vote against the Constitution she despises.
In 2003 I posted several messages about the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Texas sodomy law.
The libs on the board I was posting on in 2003 were quite upset with my comments. No surprise there. Liberals always lack a sense of humor.
Among other things I said the U.S. Supreme Court’s sent a message to the Executive and Legislative Branches. The Cornhole Decision was clear evidence that the High Court was moving away from state laws prohibiting symptomatic acts while racing toward telling Americans what they must do. The message to state legislators was quite clear: “If you guys continue to prohibit behavior that corrodes society from within you leave this court no choice but to base our decisions on our morality rather than the Constitution. Whenever this court’s decisions legitimate the morality of 5 out of 9 lawyers you have no one to blame but yourselves.”
Incidentally, do not be too hard on the Infallible Nine. The power to impose one’s morality on strangers is intoxicating stuff —— lesser mortals avoid the hard stuff. That is why it is usually reserved for priests.
The Cornhole Decision abandoned prohibition while opening the door for government-mandated conduct in the bedroom somewhere down the road. If you doubt my contention just look at how far environmental wackoism and multicultural garbage has come.
The Cornhole Decision handed down by the High Court also set me to thinking about the Victorian Age. My first thought was that a tenacious holdover from the Victorian Age had been abolished. That did not sit well in my mind; so I decided to focus on the Socialist Religion in relation to the two lady justices, Ginsburg and O'Connor, who spoke up in favor of buggery. One can only speculate that there was a whole lot of girlish giggling taking place when they were discussing the case with each other. I mention this because I have noticed in my life that most ladies find more humor in men who get poked than they find in men who go around doing the poking.
The first step to understanding reminded me that women lacking royal blood had been denied the Right to impose their morality on others long before the Victorians put a damper on pleasures of the flesh. (Our British cousins will be happy to learn that I completely exonerated Queen Victoria from any culpability in America’s judicial problems.)
Then the dawn broke. Women always wore the collar in the Socialist Religion beholden to no man. Now they not only use their religious collars as a license to get even for centuries of being shutout, they signed up the government’s muscle as an accomplice.
Thankfully, I am not called upon to make weighty decisions for everybody. The best I can do is let Professor Harold Hill demonstrate how judicial incrementalism works:
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized sodomy. Ginsburg voted with the majority:
Majority Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence O'Connor
Dissent Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas
Dissent Thomas
Concurrence O'Connor
Dissent Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas
Dissent Thomas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Opinion_of_the_Court
Now, the court will address whether or not the term “sex” in the 1964 Title VII discrimination law includes the concept of “gender identity.”
Next major Supreme Court decision: The S-word
Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/25/2019 @ 2:37 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/next-major-supreme-court-decision-the-s-word/
Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/25/2019 @ 2:37 pm
https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/next-major-supreme-court-decision-the-s-word/
If Ginsburg is still on the Court when the votes are counted there is no doubt she will vote against the Constitution she despises.
In 2003 I posted several messages about the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Texas sodomy law.
The libs on the board I was posting on in 2003 were quite upset with my comments. No surprise there. Liberals always lack a sense of humor.
Among other things I said the U.S. Supreme Court’s sent a message to the Executive and Legislative Branches. The Cornhole Decision was clear evidence that the High Court was moving away from state laws prohibiting symptomatic acts while racing toward telling Americans what they must do. The message to state legislators was quite clear: “If you guys continue to prohibit behavior that corrodes society from within you leave this court no choice but to base our decisions on our morality rather than the Constitution. Whenever this court’s decisions legitimate the morality of 5 out of 9 lawyers you have no one to blame but yourselves.”
Incidentally, do not be too hard on the Infallible Nine. The power to impose one’s morality on strangers is intoxicating stuff —— lesser mortals avoid the hard stuff. That is why it is usually reserved for priests.
The Cornhole Decision abandoned prohibition while opening the door for government-mandated conduct in the bedroom somewhere down the road. If you doubt my contention just look at how far environmental wackoism and multicultural garbage has come.
The Cornhole Decision handed down by the High Court also set me to thinking about the Victorian Age. My first thought was that a tenacious holdover from the Victorian Age had been abolished. That did not sit well in my mind; so I decided to focus on the Socialist Religion in relation to the two lady justices, Ginsburg and O'Connor, who spoke up in favor of buggery. One can only speculate that there was a whole lot of girlish giggling taking place when they were discussing the case with each other. I mention this because I have noticed in my life that most ladies find more humor in men who get poked than they find in men who go around doing the poking.
The first step to understanding reminded me that women lacking royal blood had been denied the Right to impose their morality on others long before the Victorians put a damper on pleasures of the flesh. (Our British cousins will be happy to learn that I completely exonerated Queen Victoria from any culpability in America’s judicial problems.)
Then the dawn broke. Women always wore the collar in the Socialist Religion beholden to no man. Now they not only use their religious collars as a license to get even for centuries of being shutout, they signed up the government’s muscle as an accomplice.
Thankfully, I am not called upon to make weighty decisions for everybody. The best I can do is let Professor Harold Hill demonstrate how judicial incrementalism works:
Last edited:
