| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| **** the SCOTUS https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10918 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Aizle [ Mon May 05, 2014 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | **** the SCOTUS |
That is all. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Mon May 05, 2014 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
Care to elaborate? |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Mon May 05, 2014 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... ings-video Probably this. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue May 06, 2014 12:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow. We have Supreme Court opinions that include the phrase "what's the big deal?" Somebody kill me. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Tue May 06, 2014 5:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Müs wrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0505/Supreme-Court-Constitution-allows-for-public-prayer-at-town-meetings-video Probably this. That's just the cherry on the top of Shitty Rulings Mountain. Citizen United and the more recent effective elimination of contribution limits are examples of prior **** You worthy work. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Tue May 06, 2014 7:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
But, obviously, not the case where a prior Solicitor General was allowed to rule on her own arguments? We support that policy point, so the egregious ethical violation, conflict of interest, and sheer criminality of Elena Kagan ruling on her own arguments isn't "**** you" worthy, Aizle? Sorry, but all I see here is someone supporting the notion that some political speech should be more free than other political speech. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue May 06, 2014 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Wow. We have Supreme Court opinions that include the phrase "what's the big deal?" Somebody kill me. I love it. All laws should be crafted and judged this way. "yeah, but so what?" "excellent argument, case dismissed." If it's not a big deal, don't make it illegal/banned/etc. LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue May 06, 2014 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wish the Supreme Court could issue a ruling with the following: "Put on your big boy pants and STFU". In fact I think that should be the primary ruling for most of the garbage that gets forwarded to them. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue May 06, 2014 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hopwin wrote: I wish the Supreme Court could issue a ruling with the following: "Put on your big boy pants and STFU". In fact I think that should be the primary ruling for most of the garbage that gets forwarded to them. It's a lifetime appointment, so they could totally pull that off. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue May 06, 2014 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
How does a "ceremonial" opening prayer infringe upon your free exercise? Why should the dissent of two people disrupt the tradition of centuries and the implied will of the majority? If you don't believe in God, what is so offensive about hearing prayers to Him? If you truly believe they are empty words that don't breach the four walls, why care? The great thing about local government is your vote counts so much more. Upset with a council policy? Get with like minded individuals in your community and vote in some reps sympathetic to your point of view, or run yourself. Most council races are pretty slim, especially if you live in a community sufficiently small that they are all elected at large. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Tue May 06, 2014 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
I think my lack of religious views are pretty well known around here. I guess I don't really see a problem with the ruling or the reasoning. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Tue May 06, 2014 5:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
I'm fine with it as long as they allow all prayers from all religions. If they begin meetings with Jewish prayers, Greek Orthodox prayers, Islamic prayers, Satanic prayers, prayers to Bob, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, prayers to Gaia, and so on and so forth, then I say go for it. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Tue May 06, 2014 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nehemiah Scudder for President!!! A term late, but hey, what's the big deal? |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue May 06, 2014 5:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
Numbuk wrote: I'm fine with it as long as they allow all prayers from all religions. If they begin meetings with Jewish prayers, Greek Orthodox prayers, Islamic prayers, Satanic prayers, prayers to Bob, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, prayers to Gaia, and so on and so forth, then I say go for it. The prayers were predominately christian, as reflected by the community demographics. On occasion other religious figures from other faiths from within the community were allowed to offer prayers as well. What the SCOTUS removed was the appellate court's assertion that they had to go father than that to maintain prayer diversity, inviting people of faiths not from the community (up to 100 miles away) to come and offer prayers. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Tue May 06, 2014 8:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
Or they could just, you know, knock it off completely and let it be a personal thing that people choose to do (or not do) prior to the meeting. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue May 06, 2014 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
They could, but why should they have to? There's all kinda of subjects people talk about in the public square, why is prayer different? |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Tue May 06, 2014 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's not discussion, nor is it self-contained. It's the difference between sitting a public park having a picnic and seeing a bunch of Pastafarians on another side of the park gather together in a circle and begin praying versus sitting in a public park having a picnic and those Pastafarians specifically encircling your family group to begin praying to their starchy god. Basically, general disregard for others. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue May 06, 2014 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: That's not discussion, nor is it self-contained. It's the difference between sitting a public park having a picnic and seeing a bunch of Pastafarians on another side of the park gather together in a circle and begin praying versus sitting in a public park having a picnic and those Pastafarians specifically encircling your family group to begin praying to their starchy god. Basically, general disregard for others. Aside from the fact that it's nothing like that at all. Neither of those 2 scenarios reflects the situation the court was asked to address. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Tue May 06, 2014 10:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
Sure. Ok. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed May 07, 2014 5:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: **** the SCOTUS |
"General disregard for others" is an awfully high bar for free expression. Isn't using the name of Jesus as a curse word pretty much a general disregard for all of Christianity? It's likely offensive to more than two people in Greece New York. Again what the courts decided was that the council didn't have to search a 100 mile radius for the only pastafarian and invite him to pray at council. However if there was a pastafarian assembly in the city, they would have to make a fair effort to invite them to pray at council now and then. Furthermore the council isn't encircling you. You're free to walk out of the room for a minute if its that offensive (which goes back to my original post) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|