|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 4, 2014 6:03:30 GMT -6
Ok then let's replace them ALL and start fresh. Congress too. . Until then the high court has decided this issue like it or not........... So we should be worried about future decisions made by the court as if they couldn't get such an easy case correct in your minds and others what are we to do with more complex issues that arise in front of them? Then I wonder about A lot of their past decisions as well, hum.........................
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 4, 2014 7:47:52 GMT -6
all the talk about believing in this, and believing in that by Hobby Lobby is nothing more than smoke, and nothing further from the truth.
anyone that can read "See jane run" can read exactly what Hobbys Lobbys position is on birth control
and reading A, and B, and C- leaves only one conclusion to be drawn- this was a political thing, not a belief thing-
and it explains why TC and others are trying to jump on the religious freedom bandwagon, and keep falling off, is because of right wing talk radio
with this logic, TC could see a coyote with wool in it's mouth, and conclude he was framed.............
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 4, 2014 7:50:24 GMT -6
which is why I don't care about the mid terms, but look forward to 2016 when another democrat gets elected to WH, and replaces 2-3 justices-
yes, you should wonder about their past decisions- from their giving W the election, to stating corporations are people, to removing campaign limits to allow politics to be even more controlled by big money (and that's working out well too)
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 4, 2014 8:10:25 GMT -6
Why is some people so afraid of religion? You can either par take or not, but I am glad that we have religious freedom in this country and it is protected by our laws and high court.
Some are quick to judge the motive but the justices made the final verdict did they not? They had the power to go another direction but decided not to. The way our country is setup do we all like it? Nope but it is the way we do things, any decision will make a portion of the population upset at their decisions.
I wouldn't say a democrat is a shoe in for the next election of president as the key points will be jobs and national debt, answers will be key to people, remember these elections run in cycles human nature.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 5, 2014 6:12:38 GMT -6
why are some people, afraid of the truth?
lets see-
they provided these very same birth control items Pre HC they are invested in the companies that make these items they buy the majority of their stock from China, the worst country in world for sterilization, birth control, 1 family 1 child
fact
now HC
now- its against their highly held religious beliefs.
if they are an example of religious beliefs- God help us all!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 5, 2014 6:55:40 GMT -6
All about a mandate against religious beliefs ................................
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 5, 2014 8:00:23 GMT -6
bullshit
its all about someone pretending religion is floating their political boat
|
|
|
Post by leghorn on Jul 5, 2014 9:05:53 GMT -6
IMO the supreme court should abolished , you have 9 egomaniacs making decisions that affect the entire country , when the majority of citizens are against most of their rulings . Let the individual states decide such matters . Theres no need for a supreme court anymore .
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Jul 5, 2014 10:02:06 GMT -6
I tend to agree with the statement about the value of the US supreme court as the selection process is purely political and we wonder who will die or retire during a certain administration and then who controls the Senate etc. etc. Our English legal tort system allows for an individual case to set precedence on issues that impact millions for generations and to me having 9 persons making decisions about how to interpret what 535 politicians agreed to that were elected by 310 million removes us even further from our representative form of government that we have.
Now instead of the worth or value of a decision we look at the winners and losers and how political that may be. It is like watching reruns of the OJ verdict. It was not about guilt it was about technical issues and discrediting our institutions, like Watergate, Iron Contra and other issues have. We have created a cynicism regarding our public and private institutions and yet they continue to become larger, no wonder we are living in an era of dysfunction as a society. We don't want immigrants living in our town but when I travel and stay in a motel I want them working in the hotel as that allows me to pay $89 per night instead of $91 per night.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 5, 2014 10:24:15 GMT -6
it would be impossible to have our system of gov't, without the supreme court. sure, you could abolish the court, but it would be in name or institution only.
the system the founders came up with, ensured that we have had almost 240 years with the SAMe, continuous government.
that's kind of rare, in case you didn't know.
so if you accept the constitution and the bill of rights as being the reason, then you need a SC to hold the other branches in check- the problem lies where a majority of the court are voting current political concerns, and not constitutional ones.
there have been eras of bad courts before- this era started with the clown suit and the giving an election away-
it might be of interest that 66% of this courts decisions, were unanimous
Bryce- the law IS about technical issues- safeguards put in by the founders in their bill of rights-
|
|
|
Post by Gerald Schmitt on Jul 5, 2014 11:25:04 GMT -6
Well, I want the Supreme Court to rule on the law and on the Constitution, not to rule on issues if they are liberal or conservative. When you get these 5 to 4 decisions it looks to me that they are letting personal beliefs influence the decisions.
Steve, do you think it would be good for the country to have an all liberal Supreme Court, or all conservative for that matter? It sounds like you would be happy to have some of the conservative justices replaced by liberals by a future Democratic president?
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Jul 5, 2014 11:39:45 GMT -6
And on factual information......................
Not ignore the science of the issue that is at the root of the case, as with the stated belief of the owners of Hobby Lobby that the 3 birth control methods, Plan B, ELLA, and IUD's were abortifacients, when the scientific evidence shows they are not.
Think about that for a bit and apply the logic of adjudicating or legislating other issues, like ours, where the beliefs of groups and individuals are contrary to the body of scientific evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Gerald Schmitt on Jul 5, 2014 11:56:44 GMT -6
FWS, thats what I was trying to say. I would be happy if they would rule on science and factual information on gun control cases or anything else for that matter.
I was not speaking about the Hobby Lobby decision, I really don't know enough about it to have an opinion. I don't think its right if they rule based on if they are liberal or conservative, seems like this may have been the case on this particular ruling, especially when you look at who voted which way.
The point I'm trying to make, rather poorly I guess, is that I would hate to see the Supreme Court turn into another liberal or conservative branch of the government. And it seems to be going that way. I've always seen the Supreme Court as an institution that stands up for the rights of the individual, especially ones who are victimized by the majority. You shouldn't be able to guess a Justice's vote by their political leanings, or who appointed them.
I guess keeping politics off the court is probably wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 6, 2014 14:14:41 GMT -6
Gerald- I think, based on this court, that liberals tend to follow the law, and conservatives on the court are more apt to try to make political points
the SC is SUPPOSE to be above politics, and the good justices, are. once you put on that robe, politics should cease- its why its a non elective position, and one for life. perhaps we need to put an age limit on with increased life span
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Jul 7, 2014 16:51:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Jul 7, 2014 17:06:52 GMT -6
Gerald- I think, based on this court, that liberals tend to follow the law, and conservatives on the court are more apt to try to make political points the SC is SUPPOSE to be above politics, and the good justices, are. once you put on that robe, politics should cease- its why its a non elective position, and one for life. perhaps we need to put an age limit on with increased life span I agree, Ginsberg should have retired a president or two ago.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 8, 2014 6:14:31 GMT -6
and what about Scalia? He should have retired when his brain died.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Jul 16, 2014 0:55:26 GMT -6
|
|