Bye bye Miss American Pie, hello Lucifer and 666’s US Supreme Court

[Redneck Mystic]

3 years ago, I'm released from the detention center with specific court orders. One of which involved life skills testing and another a psychological evaluation. The test itself stumped me based on how it worded the issue of abortion, requiring it answered as a religious issue just prior to actual test, which I disagreed with.

It's a woman's issue. If I didn't complete the testing, I was facing 180 days in jail. I called a lawyer over this one, but decided it was in my best interest to go ahead and finish the testing. I also contacted the developers of that life skills test. To make a long story short, I finished the test according to my court orders and passed with a 98. This all took place just prior to the roe vs. wade abortion issue return to the SC and its decision. Current affairs typically helps hone intuition, and the test happened to spring up a red flag. Beyond this, I have nothing to add.

It's not my battle, but states need greater control.

Good for you, but giving every state freedom to pass its own abortion laws three a whole lot of American women under the American religious right bus, and I recall Amendment 1, bars Congress from establishing a religion, and I recall Amendment 4 applied the Constitution and amendments thereto to the states, and very antiabortionist I have know was a conservative Christian. In the law is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

Good for you, but giving every state freedom to pass its own abortion laws three a whole lot of American women under the American religious right bus, and I recall Amendment 1, bars Congress from establishing a religion, and I recall Amendment 4 applied the Constitution and amendments thereto to the states, and very antiabortionist I have know was a conservative Christian. In the law is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

Excuses me, Amendment 1 barred establishment of religion by Congree. I’m 81, weak eyes, very small font here.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

Good for you, but giving every state freedom to pass its own abortion laws three a whole lot of American women under the American religious right bus, and I recall Amendment 1, bars Congress from establishing a religion, and I recall Amendment 4 applied the Constitution and amendments thereto to the states, and very antiabortionist I have know was a conservative Christian. In the law is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

Excuses me, Amendment 1 barred establishment of religion by Congree. I’m 81, weak eyes, very small font here.

 

[Balthazzar]

Good for you, but giving every state freedom to pass its own abortion laws three a whole lot of American women under the American religious right bus, and I recall Amendment 1, bars Congress from establishing a religion, and I recall Amendment 4 applied the Constitution and amendments thereto to the states, and very antiabortionist I have know was a conservative Christian. In the law is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

The anti-religious crowd is no holds barred it seems. The reason I say this, is I'm suggesting that in the testing program, abortion was labeled a religious issue as an attempt to stoke the anti-religion bon fires. We are a secular nation who honors religious freedom. At least, this is the premise or construct this nation was built upon. I agree that no establishment of religion should have right to rule over everyone in this nation. I also think the same should apply to secular denial of religious rights (10 commandment display for example) per state decision and according to each state's majorities. What about abortion then? Why would this be such travesty when all a state need is a majority for this procedure to be available, per State legislative ruling, which is something that would best reflect each States majority.

 

[Quintessence]

Why would this be such travesty when all a state need is a majority for this procedure to be available, per State legislative ruling, which is something that would best reflect each States majority.

Because not all states have a recourse to make the will of the majority into reality. See: Iowa, which will be joining the monstrous forced birther states inside a month because the elected representatives don't care that the majority of citizens not only didn't want an emergency session legislating forced birth, but don't want forced birth, period. And there's basically no recourse for this in the state other than ignoring this barbaric law because all constitutional amendments have to go through the legislature first. Guns have more rights than actual people in this state now, which is flipping disgusting beyond words.

 

[PureX]

Biden can say all he want’s about those two wing nuts and it would not change anything, they are appointed for life and there is nothing any president can do about it, nor is there much anyone else can do about it, because the only way to remove a Supreme Court justice is by impeachment in Congress, and good darn luck there.

If a SC justice commits a crime, they can be arrested and charged. If the Biden appointed head of the DOJ deems all this money and gifts they’ve been taking are illegal bribes in exchange for favorable decisions and arrests them for it, who is going to stop them? If the president is immune to prosecution because he’s president, why not the head of the DOJ? Why not senators and congressmen? Anyway, the president could just pardon them of any crimes they commit on his behalf. So nothing is stopping him from having them arrested and charged so long as the DOJ is willing.

You see how insane all this becomes? You still think there’s the rule of law, but not anymore. Not for the acting president. And not for anyone that does his bidding.

 

[Balthazzar]

Because not all states have a recourse to make the will of the majority into reality. See: Iowa, which will be joining the monstrous forced birther states inside a month because the elected representatives don't care that the majority of citizens not only didn't want an emergency session legislating forced birth, but don't want forced birth, period. And there's basically no recourse for this in the state other than ignoring this barbaric law because all constitutional amendments have to go through the legislature first. Guns have more rights than actual people in this state now, which is flipping disgusting beyond words.

Perhaps I'm mistaken on this issue, then. It's not my battle either way. I will suggest that forced then forced birth seems to me a bit too controlling for any sense of understanding when it comes to the nature of an argument. Even so, it may come down to state decisions and operate like an outpatient procedure if required. I honestly don't know. I lost my acorns once attempting a pro life only stance. This one's out of my league until and if ever it becomes more personal.

 

[Alien826]

If Biden declared Trump ineligible for office because he is a convicted felon, who could stop him? According to the highest court in the land, Trump would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE. Because Biden, as acting president, could not be held legally responsible for having imposed that decision.

The problem with this is that expanding the court requires legislation. Biden could make whatever pronouncements he wants it wouldn't make it happen. It would require a bill to go through both House and the Senate. So, a majority in the Hose and (maybe) a super majority in the Senate would be required, neither existing now. Biden would have to sign it of course.

Incidentally the question arises as to whether the SCOTUS could strike it down. It would be very wrong, as the Constitution definitely allows it, but who knows with this lot.

I'd go for impeachment of Thomas and Alito, but the same constraints apply.

 

[Alien826]

The anti-religious crowd is no holds barred it seems. The reason I say this, is I'm suggesting that in the testing program, abortion was labeled a religious issue as an attempt to stoke the anti-religion bon fires. We are a secular nation who honors religious freedom. At least, this is the premise or construct this nation was built upon. I agree that no establishment of religion should have right to rule over everyone in this nation. I also think the same should apply to secular denial of religious rights (10 commandment display for example) per state decision and according to each state's majorities. What about abortion then? Why would this be such travesty when all a state need is a majority for this procedure to be available, per State legislative ruling, which is something that would best reflect each States majority.

I ask this one a lot.

Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?

 

[Balthazzar]

I ask this one a lot.

Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?

The basics of the process is about the larger picture, and while many of us are often the ones who go unacknowledged, the opportunity to be acknowledged is, or rather could be obtained on a state-to-state basis, depending on citizen willingness to peaceably assemble in locations better equipped to accommodate the needs of any given minority.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

The basics of the process is about the larger picture, and while many of us are often the ones who go unacknowledged, the opportunity to be acknowledged is, or rather could be obtained on a state-to-state basis, depending on citizen willingness to peaceably assemble in locations better equipped to accommodate the needs of any given minority.

You must not live in Alabama, where I live? Or any state where one politcal party runs ths show all the time?

That aside.what’s you question got to do with my post?

 

[Balthazzar]

You must not live in Alabama, where I live? Or any state where one politcal party runs ths show all the time?

That aside.what’s you question got to do with my post?

You brought and continue to bring up minority rights, which I fall into at times, just like everyone else does. To me, color or culture isn't the only qualifying factor defining our minority classes, although some people still view it this way. I didn't grow up in Alabama, or Mississippi, or even Louisiana or anywhere else that race was ever an issue overwhelming our lives, mine anyway. Today it's about religion, sexual identification, economic status, education, among other things. What did my question have to do with your post? You're not alone and your state isn't the only state to consider as a place of residence. I may or may not stay in my home state. I'd prefer to locate more accommodating environments to plant my roots. The issue is in the majorities and the minority effect on them. I may always be among the less acknowledged, and if this is true I'll need to endure the storms we're facing as one less heard.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

You brought and continue to bring up minority rights, which I fall into at times, just like everyone else does. To me, color or culture isn't the only qualifying factor defining our minority classes, although some people still view it this way. I didn't grow up in Alabama, or Mississippi, or even Louisiana or anywhere else that race was ever an issue overwhelming our lives, mine anyway. Today it's about religion, sexual identification, economic status, education, among other things. What did my question have to do with your post? You're not alone and your state isn't the only state to consider as a place of residence. I may or may not stay in my home state. I'd prefer to locate more accommodating environments to plant my roots. The issue is in the majorities and the minority effect on them. I may always bamong the less acknowledged, and if this is true I'll need to endure the storms we're facing as one less heard.

You wrote: "Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?”
What ever gave you the notion that the state governments are less likely to tram[le the rights of the minority than is the federal federal government. My post is about the the conservative Justices on the US Supreme Court giving America to right wing Christians, even though the Founding Fathers made it ever clear in Amendment 1, they did not want any religious to control America.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

You brought and continue to bring up minority rights, which I fall into at times, just like everyone else does. To me, color or culture isn't the only qualifying factor defining our minority classes, although some people still view it this way. I didn't grow up in Alabama, or Mississippi, or even Louisiana or anywhere else that race was ever an issue overwhelming our lives, mine anyway. Today it's about religion, sexual identification, economic status, education, among other things. What did my question have to do with your post? You're not alone and your state isn't the only state to consider as a place of residence. I may or may not stay in my home state. I'd prefer to locate more accommodating environments to plant my roots. The issue is in the majorities and the minority effect on them. I may always bamong the less acknowledged, and if this is true I'll need to endure the storms we're facing as one less heard.

You wrote: "Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?”
What ever gave you the notion that the state governments are less likely to tram[le the rights of the minority than is the federal federal government. My post is about the the conservative Justices on the US Supreme Court giving America to right wing Christians, even though the Founding Fathers made it ever clear in Amendment 1, they did not want any brand of religion to control America.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

You brought and continue to bring up minority rights, which I fall into at times, just like everyone else does. To me, color or culture isn't the only qualifying factor defining our minority classes, although some people still view it this way. I didn't grow up in Alabama, or Mississippi, or even Louisiana or anywhere else that race was ever an issue overwhelming our lives, mine anyway. Today it's about religion, sexual identification, economic status, education, among other things. What did my question have to do with your post? You're not alone and your state isn't the only state to consider as a place of residence. I may or may not stay in my home state. I'd prefer to locate more accommodating environments to plant my roots. The issue is in the majorities and the minority effect on them. I may always bamong the less acknowledged, and if this is true I'll need to endure the storms we're facing as one less heard.

You wrote: "Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?”
What ever gave you the notion that the state governments are less likely to tram[le the rights of the minority than is the federal federal government. My post is about the the conservative Justices on the US Supreme Court giving America to right wing Christians, even though the Founding Fathers made it ever clear in Amendment 1, they did not want any brand of religion to control America.

 

[Redneck Mystic]

You brought and continue to bring up minority rights, which I fall into at times, just like everyone else does. To me, color or culture isn't the only qualifying factor defining our minority classes, although some people still view it this way. I didn't grow up in Alabama, or Mississippi, or even Louisiana or anywhere else that race was ever an issue overwhelming our lives, mine anyway. Today it's about religion, sexual identification, economic status, education, among other things. What did my question have to do with your post? You're not alone and your state isn't the only state to consider as a place of residence. I may or may not stay in my home state. I'd prefer to locate more accommodating environments to plant my roots. The issue is in the majorities and the minority effect on them. I may always bamong the less acknowledged, and if this is true I'll need to endure the storms we're facing as one less heard.

You wrote: "Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?”
What ever gave you the notion that the state governments are less likely to tram[le the rights of the minority than is the federal federal government. My post is about the the conservative Justices on the US Supreme Court giving America to right wing Christians, even though the Founding Fathers made it ever clear in Amendment 1, they did not want any brand of religion to control America.

 

[Pogo]

The basics of the process is about the larger picture, and while many of us are often the ones who go unacknowledged, the opportunity to be acknowledged is, or rather could be obtained on a state-to-state basis, depending on citizen willingness to peaceably assemble in locations better equipped to accommodate the needs of any given minority.

Why not towns or cities, or in this case the relevant unit should be the individual, The government has no business in welcoming or discouraging any minority in any government building.
Then we don't have to move because we are all equal in public spaces.

 

[Balthazzar]

You wrote: "Given that both the states and the country as a whole contain representatives of both points of view, why is that the states' governments are less likely to trample the rights of the minority then the Federal Government government? Or if you prefer, that it's more acceptable when they do?”
What ever gave you the notion that the state governments are less likely to tram[le the rights of the minority than is the federal federal government. My post is about the the conservative Justices on the US Supreme Court giving America to right wing Christians, even though the Founding Fathers made it ever clear in Amendment 1, they did not want any religious to control America.

Those aren't my words.

 

[Balthazzar]

Why not towns or cities, or in this case the relevant unit should be the individual, The government has no business in welcoming or discouraging any minority in any government building.
Then we don't have to move because we are all equal in public spaces.

You aren't required to move anyway. This is simply something I've only begun to acknowledge in the nation. If states are given more governing power, I would assume we as citizens would have opportunity to assemble with like-minded in states that best reflect our views, whereby less and less people would end up feeling unrepresented. I guess it doesn't matter in the end. The broad-brush strokes of big government and this nations secular movements will continue to isolate some types of people. The same is true for smaller government efforts and greater state control. We'll still be isolated, albeit with like minded others.

 

[PureX]

The problem with this is that expanding the court requires legislation. Biden could make whatever pronouncements he wants it wouldn't make it happen. It would require a bill to go through both House and the Senate. So, a majority in the Hose and (maybe) a super majority in the Senate would be required, neither existing now. Biden would have to sign it of course.

Incidentally the question arises as to whether the SCOTUS could strike it down. It would be very wrong, as the Constitution definitely allows it, but who knows with this lot.

I'd go for impeachment of Thomas and Alito, but the same constraints apply.

All Biden would need would be people willing to carry out his "orders". No law would stop him because he would not be legally responsible for any "official" order he gives. And he could simply exonerate those who carry them out, so they would never be held responsible either. You keep thinking that the rule of the Constitution somehow still prevails, but Biden can now simply ignore it with no legal consequences whatever. And although it still applies to everyone else in the government, Biden could simply exonerate them if anyone tried to prosecute them for carrying out his orders. So there is no actual legal consequence there, either. And because this is all ultimately a legal debacle, there aren't going to be a lot of people looking to disobey the president's orders. If the president orders the secret service to detain Trump at Mara Lago because he is deemed no longer eligible to run for public office, are they really going to refuse his orders and trust this legal system to protect them? I don't think so. And keep in mind that a huge portion of the American people would APPLAUD getting Trump off the ballot and off their TVs. Not to mention that a significant portion of the Secret Service, that have seen Trump's behavior up close, would be only too happy to do it.