Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Just more binary simpleton thought designed to divide the populace so the globalists can take over like they're Messianic or something.

Oh, pul-ease. You are the most limited binary thinker on this forum. You divide people into those who are WOKE because they took the InfoWars red pill and all the rest of us who are still fast asleep.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Oh, pul-ease. You are the most limited binary thinker on this forum. You divide people into those who are WOKE because they took the InfoWars red pill and all the rest of us who are still fast asleep.

Physician, heal thyself.

How have I divided anyone? I want to see some actual proof on this, instead of the bully tactics you've been pushing the past few months.

And if you actually paid attention to Infowars, they don't cut off when certain buzzwords are stated, unlike the Counterfeit News Network when someone says "fake news"...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

They voted 5-3 to allow inquiry into racist remarks asking jurors.

It seems like Alito's dissent raises some good questions. While being sympathetic to the emotional impulse behind the decision, it raises far more questions than it resolves:
-- why are certain kinds of bias a problem while other kinds of bias that are equally distorting of judgment not a problem? if bias distorts judgment, isn't it a problem no matter whether it is racial bias or some other kind of bias? will an atheist's snide remarks about a fundamentalist defendant be the next challenge? or a fundamentalist's dismissal of a heathen unbeliever defendant be the next challenge?
-- will this ruling now lead to defense lawyers chasing down jurors after every major trial to <strike>pester</strike> ask them about the conduct of other jurors?
-- suppose two jurors just didn't like each other; will this ruling be a way for them to continue their feud after the trial?
-- if taken to its ultimate extreme, will we eventually start to record all jury deliberations so that some "impartial expert" [hah!] can then review them for indications of possible bias?

 

[unofan]

It seems like Alito's dissent raises some good questions. While being sympathetic to the emotional impulse behind the decision, it raises far more questions than it resolves:
-- why are certain kinds of bias a problem while other kinds of bias that are equally distorting of judgment not a problem? if bias distorts judgment, isn't it a problem no matter whether it is racial bias or some other kind of bias? will an atheist's snide remarks about a fundamentalist defendant be the next challenge? or a fundamentalist's dismissal of a heathen unbeliever defendant be the next challenge?
-- will this ruling now lead to defense lawyers chasing down jurors after every major trial to <strike>pester</strike> ask them about the conduct of other jurors?
-- suppose two jurors just didn't like each other; will this ruling be a way for them to continue their feud after the trial?
-- if taken to its ultimate extreme, will we eventually start to record all jury deliberations so that some "impartial expert" [hah!] can then review them for indications of possible bias?

Whether you think it's fair or not, racism has always been America's original sin, hence the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

And while inquiry into jury deliberations is rare, it's not completely unprecedented.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Not sealed. They voted 5-3 to allow inquiry into racist remarks asking jurors.

there is one really bizarre aspect about this case that I haven't seen anyone discuss yet.

The two jurors who said that the third juror made "racist remarks" still voted to convict anyway, did they not?

Were they also "racially biased"? if not, then if they thought that "racial bias" was the only reason that the third juror voted to convict, why would they not then have voted to acquit?

how did the jury verdict turn out to be unanimous, instead of a hung jury??



sorry, but why are the other members of the jury not able to police this alleged bias among themselves? There are 12 people there, each one voting their conscience based on the evidence. to claim that one juror has "racial bias" reflects very very badly on the other 11 jurors for allowing themselves to be swayed by it. or, alternately, "racial bias" had nothing to do with the verdict since supposedly there were other, far more valid, reasons to convict anyway.



Kennedy's ruling is touchy-feely mush in this case, it seems.... No logic nor reason, no matter how virtuous.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Is it just me, or is Neil Gorsuch the quietest SCOTUS nomination in a long, long time? His confirmation hearings begin this coming Monday, and it seems like there's very little out there in the news when compared to prior nominees' vetting and media presences, at least since I've been an adult.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Is it just me, or is Neil Gorsuch the quietest SCOTUS nomination in a long, long time? His confirmation hearings begin this coming Monday, and it seems like there's very little out there in the news when compared to prior nominees' vetting and media presences, at least since I've been an adult.

Too much other stuff to deal with. The media hasnt had time to look into him cause they have a new scandal every day with the GOP. Once the hearing starts though his skeletons (if there are any) will come to the forefront. I think the Dems are lying in wait on this one...

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Is it just me, or is Neil Gorsuch the quietest SCOTUS nomination in a long, long time? His confirmation hearings begin this coming Monday, and it seems like there's very little out there in the news when compared to prior nominees' vetting and media presences, at least since I've been an adult.

Too much other stuff to deal with. The media hasnt had time to look into him cause they have a new scandal every day with the GOP. Once the hearing starts though his skeletons (if there are any) will come to the forefront. I think the Dems are lying in wait on this one...

Don't forget, we are talking "Razzle Dazzle" in the fullest ways here.

It's too bad that it's because of total incompetence vs. a magician who is trying to pull a fast one on us.

 

[joecct]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Solve the problem, change the law.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/federal-court-gay-isnt-a-protected-class-under-title-vii

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Serious question:

If a religious ritual involves human sacrifice, is it constitutionally protected under the First Amendment?

If not, why not?





[yes, this is step one of a two-step discussion....but step two doesn't follow until we get a straightforward, serious answer to step one]

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Free Exercise Clause

Serious question:

If a religious ritual involves human sacrifice, is it constitutionally protected under the First Amendment?

If not, why not?





[yes, this is step one of a two-step discussion....but step two doesn't follow until we get a straightforward, serious answer to step one]

No, it's not legal.

Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

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

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1]

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Free Exercise Clause

No, it's not legal.

Free Exercise Clause

[hint: I knew that....merely noticing how protecting US citizens from non-US citizens who want to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion on US soil was just declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Seems contradictory to me based on legal reasoning. Maybe the judges were being political instead, eh?]

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[hint: I knew that....merely noticing how protecting US citizens from non-US citizens who want to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion on US soil was just declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Seems contradictory to me based on legal reasoning. Maybe the judges were being political instead, eh?]

Where do you come up with this bs? Which political party came down on the pro-side of human sacrifice? Was that part of the Greenback platform in the 1870s?

The Court was applying common sense in interpreting the law, which is a big part of what they do. When one party lacks common sense, I guess you could accuse the judges of being political for instilling it, but really they're just doing their jobs.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

[hint: I knew that....merely noticing how protecting US citizens from non-US citizens who want to commit human sacrifice in the name of their religion on US soil was just declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Seems contradictory to me based on legal reasoning. Maybe the judges were being political instead, eh?

Just asking questions, so you can advance a narrative. We know your schtik, Fish. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Just asking questions, so you can advance a narrative. We know your schtik, Fish. You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement, especially in a time when >95% of the people here were officially Christians (Native peoples did not yet count). The remainder would have been Jewish with the very rare "other".

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement, especially in a time when >95% of the people here were officially Christians (Native peoples did not yet count). The remainder would have been Jewish with the very rare "other".

It's a political statement when it affirms your belief that "America is a Christian nation!1!!1" or some such BS. Much the same way that "liberal judges" are "legislating from the bench" when they interpret the law in ways that conservatives don't like.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I suppose. I see the mentioning of the human sacrifice in the court's write up as taking religion to an archaic, absurd end. While the Founders made sure to not establish America as having a religion, most of the government functionaries wouldn't have necessarily been of the same mind, in that while they wouldn't actively push Christianity onto the masses, there would've been simple assumptions about how the masses related to some sort of deity.

Are there any religions that have survived to this day that practice such a thing as human sacrifice in any first world nation? It's likely a moot point by now regardless.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I suppose. I see the mentioning of the human sacrifice in the court's write up as taking religion to an archaic, absurd end. While the Founders made sure to not establish America as having a religion, most of the government functionaries wouldn't have necessarily been of the same mind, in that while they wouldn't actively push Christianity onto the masses, there would've been simple assumptions about how the masses related to some sort of deity.

Are there any religions that have survived to this day that practice such a thing as human sacrifice in any first world nation? It's likely a moot point by now regardless.

I know, it's why an avowed atheist will never be elected POTUS.

Islam sacrifices human lives all the time, don'tcha know? At least that's what InfoWars leader, and everyone's favorite drunk uncle, Alex Jones tells the sheeple every day.

 

[unofan]

I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement, especially in a time when >95% of the people here were officially Christians (Native peoples did not yet count). The remainder would have been Jewish with the very rare "other".

That's because you don't speak derp. Let me translate for you. He's saying Muslims engage in human sacrifices and want to do so here. So the judges are legislating from the bench by striking down the travel ban.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I'm curious how stating that you're not permitted to perform human sacrifice becomes a political statement,

That's not at all what I said.

and I am not a Trump apologist nor defender either so other people can spare themselves the spurious ad hominem attacks...

-- Radical Islamist terrorists practice human sacrifice in the name of their religion (i.e., they murder unbelievers, especially other Muslims who follow a different strand of Islam than they do).
-- The President says, "we need to keep people who kill other people in the name of their religion out of this country."
-- A judge says, "that is an unconstitutional violation of their First Amendment rights, because you are discriminating against people on the basis of their religion."
-- your citation of Reynolds vs US says that there are no First Amendment protections for religious rituals that involve human sacrifice.
-- The judge seems to be ignoring the clear precedent of Reynolds in his ruling.
-- If the judge is ignoring that precedent, then is he really engaged in legal reasoning?
-- or is he merely pretending to engage in legal reasoning so that he can make an anti-Trump political statement instead?


and how do non-resident non-citizens have any constitutional rights at all, anyway?