US Sureme Court says Fuck you to Religion

Nordberg said:
You can be sure anti-vaxxers are using a religious exemption to escape doing the right thing. There are 3000 religions recognized, so it is easy to pull off. That is why it should be eliminated.
Click to expand...

When you start claiming getting stabbed is the "right" thing to do it ensures I won't do it because it's evidence you don't give a shit about the "right" thing. But I don't expect you to understand you're a leftist
 
Nordberg said:
It was mostly settled by privacy rights.
Click to expand...
There are no 'privacy rights'. See the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments.
Nordberg said:
The left does not want the government way deep into people's lives.
Click to expand...
Lie. That's exactly what they want. It is DEMOCRATS pushing mask mandates, vaccine mandates, light bulb mandates, toilet mandates, racial mandates, energy mandates, censorship, violent acts as 'peaceful protests', redefining marriage mandates, ...and on...and on...and on.
Nordberg said:
The right says they do not want a police state, but they are sure pushing one.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. You are talking about DEMOCRATS.
 
Althea said:
I don't think they said 'fuck you' to religion.

They said 'fuck you' to those who try to politicize Covid by claiming some sort of religious exemption.

I think that anyone who makes that claim should be forced to illustrate exactly how they adhere to their supposed 'religion' in every other aspect of same.
Click to expand...

Paradox V. Paradox M. It is DEMOCRATS politicizing Covid. Inversion fallacy.
 
Nomad said:
But it is their job, duty and Constitutional mandate, to INTERPRET the Constitution.

Just because whiny, butthurt right-wing fundie nitwit crybabies like you don't always agree with their interpretations, does not mean they are acting improperly or out of their jurisdiction.

Don't like it?

Fuck you.
Click to expand...

When abort gets punted back to the states well see how much you little bitches whine. Duck you cunt mouth
 
Nomad said:
But it is their job, duty and Constitutional mandate, to INTERPRET the Constitution.

Just because whiny, butthurt right-wing fundie nitwit crybabies like you don't always agree with their interpretations, does not mean they are acting improperly or out of their jurisdiction.

Don't like it?

Fuck you.
Click to expand...

When abort gets punted back to the states well see how much you little bitches whine. Fuck you cunt mouth
 
Into the Night said:
Changing the Constitution is not interpreting it! Redefinition fallacy. The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret the Constitution either. It is NOT their job. See Article III of the Constitution to see what their job actually is.

They are acting beyond their authority.

Discard of the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

Shitbags like you do nothing but play word games.

In order to do their job requires that they interpret The Constitution.

Into the Night said:
They do not have either the duty nor the right to make that decision. See Articles I and III and the 9th and 10th amendments.

The subject at hand is a violation of the Constitution of the United States (which you discard).
Click to expand...

You are not the one who gets to decide whether or not something is or is not a violation of The Constitution.

That is the job of The Supreme Court.

Nobody gives a shit about what you think about it.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
Click to expand...

IOW they INTERPRET The Constitution.

Take a remedial English class if you're having trouble INTERPRETING that.
 
Nomad said:
Shitbags like you do nothing but play word games.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself.
Nomad said:
In order to do their job requires that they interpret The Constitution.
Click to expand...
They have no authority to interpret the Constitution. See Articles I and III, and the 9th and 10th amendments.
Nomad said:
You are not the one who gets to decide whether or not something is or is not a violation of The Constitution.
Click to expand...
Correct. The States are. They are the owners of the Constitution. They created it. Only they can change it. Only they can interpret it.
Nomad said:
That is the job of The Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Nope. See Articles I and III, and the 9th and 10th amendments.
Nomad said:
Nobody gives a shit about what you think about it.
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself. Omniscience fallacy.
Nomad said:
IOW they INTERPRET The Constitution.
Click to expand...
Nope. See Articles I and III, and the 9th and 10th amendments.
Nomad said:
Take a remedial English class if you're having trouble INTERPRETING that.
Click to expand...
Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacy. Discard of the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
You are describing yourself.

They have no authority to interpret the Constitution. See Articles I and III, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

Correct. The States are. They are the owners of the Constitution. They created it. Only they can change it. Only they can interpret it.

Nope. See Articles I and III, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself. Omniscience fallacy.

Nope. See Articles I and III, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacy. Discard of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Folderol ^^^^^^.

All you ever offer.
 
Celticguy said:
specifically:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

this is a grossly wrong ruling of a very specific and enumerated right. the FIRST such enumerated right.
Click to expand...

You cannot use a portion of the 1st amendment to give the Supreme Court power it doesn't have.
 
Celticguy said:
specifically:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

this is a grossly wrong ruling of a very specific and enumerated right. the FIRST such enumerated right.
Click to expand...

Since the US Constitution states the Congress shall make no law.....while SCOTUS is supposedly a separate branch of government that makes it's own Christian Nation "serve the Pope or die" economic national religion of "man is God" having Islam "death to the infidels" establish those burning Bush's 9/11 Arab flying flaming chariots in order to practice Muhammad to Valhalla while Christiananlity pedophilia lynching enforcement continues it's master race FU master plan of thieving US Constitution arsonists some 20 years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top