The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[joecct]

Ah, you're back to the "I'm just asking questions" routine. Too bad, it was better when you actually played it straight for the last few weeks.

If a question stimulates debate, I think that's good. Many posts just pontificate into the I'm right and you're an idiot.

 

[joecct]

You know the rules:

Exec > Leg: Veto

Leg > Exec: Impeachment

Jud > Leg: Judicial review

Leg > Jud: Advise and consent

Jud > Exec: Judicial review

Exec > Jud: Appoint justices

This assumes that the Legislative has a set. They've been emasculated by inaction and punting the hard decisions to the Executive and the courts.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

This assumes that the Legislative has a set. They've been emasculated by inaction and punting the hard decisions to the Executive and the courts.

Doesn't change the fact that they are an equal branch of government and have just as much power to exert as the other branches. Having a set is not a prereq to being an equal branch. Remember, WE elect them. So, if WE want them to change we need to change it.

 

[joecct]

Doesn't change the fact that they are an equal branch of government and have just as much power to exert as the other branches. Having a set is not a prereq to being an equal branch. Remember, WE elect them. So, if WE want them to change we need to change it.

Good idea. But the 90% recidivism rate is not encouraging.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I am saying that your view may not be the view of the Almighty. While I am not the Supreme Judge, He is. To presume to make God's opinion conform to our perception is presunptious on our part.

As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.

It doesnt matter, you dont speak for God. If God has an issue with something, being as he/she is omnipotent and omniscient, he/she can make it known.

If God exists he/she will punish the wicked when they are up for judgement. Until then it is not your job to do so in his/her name. It takes a special level of arrogance to think you have the right to judge others in the name of God.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Also, the rules have changed and did so early on. He flooded the earth as punishment for our wickedness, then promised never to do so again, giving us rainbows as a sign of that covenant.

I don't know about you, but going from near extinction level genocide as punishment to "my bad, won't do that again" strikes me as a pretty big change.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

About 2015 years ago they seemed to have changed a lot, if you believe the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Otherwise Christians wouldn't wear polyblend clothing or eat shellfish.

I'd say the NT clarifies the OT. Also Paul had a good perspective on this that Jesus was the end of the OT law. I'd also say that if one perceives differences, the NT is the priority.

If God has an issue with something, being as he/she is omnipotent and omniscient, he/she can make it known.

Jesus.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

You seem to have that problem with a lot of people, Bob. Perhaps you should point that finger at a mirror instead.

Not really. Just a handful of people on this board who seem to enjoy complaining about things a lot, even at times when I agree with them and they're so used to complaining they don't notice.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

We all seem to be missing your point on this one. Perhaps you would consider restating it? This is not a knock -- it usually takes me three or four tries to make something I consider to be clear as day comprehensible to other people.

It was quite simple. Burd tried to draw a connection with citing God condemning things that everyone agrees are ok. I simply spun that around and threw in a couple things that most people agree aren't ok to show that in some cases people would expect God to condemn something like incest, so God condemning something isn't necessarily a bad thing. If God didn't condemn such a thing, people would certainly take issue, as compared to citing Norwegians and such like burd did.

St. Clown simply read into what I said way more than what I actually said or intended to convey, as happens fairly regularly with him.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Ok, but burd's logic backed his argument, while yours doesn't refute it. He argued that society often disagrees with what religious objectors assert, and then provided some examples. You responded by asserting society and God agree on some things. Great, but that doesn't refute his point that they differ on those things which he mentioned.

A and B both having the same relationship with C doesn't mean A = B or that A and B have the same relationships with D, E, and F.

Just because God objects to pedophilia, and society also objects to pedophilia, doesn't mean that society should object to all things God also objects to.

I doubt anyone on here would dispute that there are many things which the Bible prohibits which are also illegal. That doesn't mean we should make illegal other activities just because the Bible prohibits them.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I have previously posted the following conduct guides
1. If it harms no one, do it.
2. Protect the weak from the strong.

Obviously the extermination camp example runs afoul of the above. If a law violates one of the above, it should be opposed. Gay marriage does not.

I am not for gay marriage. I think SCOTUS made a mistake in the breadth of the ruling and should have left it to the individual states. They made the same mistake with Roe. Obviously, on this board, I am in the minority. Time will tell which path would have been better.

I pose a question on the limits of Constitutional authority and you interpret it as my views.

But FF's post related to another challenge to PPACA. This time by the Congress taking the Executive to court. My question related to the Constitutional issue presented.

If one side of the triangle gets too powerful, what are the remedies?

Read it in that context and get back to me.

So if you read my reply, I did address the question of triangle power- the relative power is very dependent on how you see the ruling. Some could easily question the legislature/public vote's authority to limit the rights of specific people as being an infringement of THEIR triangle power. But the essence of the court is to hold the right of the individual over the will of the masses.

My follow up question goes back to your earlier post that I included, where you listed your two conduct guides of being ok, which SSM seems very much to fit both, yet you are against SSM, and feel that the court overstepped it's bounds- leading to your new point.

I'm asking you to resolve the conflict of your points- SSM 1) harms nobody, and 2) gives equal rights to the minority gays over the majority Christian, yet you are against it.

In other words you ask the court to act in a manner where they fit your model of decision, but since you don't agree with it, it's overstepping their bounds on the magic triangle.

Otherwise, your hypothetical of the court overstepping their bounds really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I pose a question on the limits of Constitutional authority .... My question related to the Constitutional issue presented.

If one side of the triangle gets too powerful, what are the remedies?

Read it in that context and get back to me.

That is exactly why Judge Collyer allowed that portion of the lawsuit to proceed. Congress has the sole constitutional power to appropriate funds. Therefore the Executive branch violated the Constitution by unilaterally appropriating funds for a purpose not authorized by Congress (namely by paying billions of dollars to insurance companies to cover losses they incurred under PPACA 'mandates'). Meanwhile she also disallowed another portion of the exact same lawsuit that said the Executive exceeded Constitutional authority by delaying the onset of the employer mandate. It was an interesting split decision. This case too will wind up in front of SCOTUS eventually.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The fungus is spreading.

A second Oregon judge reportedly stopped performing marriages after a federal court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, citing his personal religious beliefs.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

God's not Caesar.

This. Absolutely nailed it. (No pun intended...? :-/ )

Even using a line from the Bible.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The fungus is spreading.

Is there really pockets on the northern side of the left coast that buys into this tripe?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The fungus is spreading.

Everyone does what's in their own self interest. Does anyone here not speed or jaywalk?

The system remains to blame. If the system chooses to not police itself, laws mean nothing.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Is there really pockets on the northern side of the left coast that buys into this tripe?

I think you underestimate how many nutjobs there are once you get into the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington. It's like Utah out there.

Map of 2012 POTUS election results by county proves my point:

<img src="http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2012/Election2012RedWhiteBlue.png" height=421 width=541></img>

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Also, to correct my own grammar, I should have said "Are there..."

 

[Slap Shot]

Same thing if God condemns pedophilia or incest. This is easy to flip around.

I don't need God to tell me pedophilia is abhorrent.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Is there really pockets on the northern side of the left coast that buys into this tripe?

Eastern OR is host to the largest rodeo in the US (Pendleton). Those folks are basically Oklahomans living in a Wyoming climate.