# Judges & Tea Party Conservatives



## Flanders

*Doing nothing is often the best course of action, while doing something about the Nifty Nine can hardly do more harm rather than doing nothing:*

June 28, 2015
   Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices
   By Rick Moran

Blog Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices​
*Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer whose heart in the right place, nevertheless, I am not sure his suggestion will rein in Supreme Court justices —— LAWYERS ALL —— let alone rein in lesser judges —— LAWYERS ALL. The question should be: What is to be done about lawyers? The answer is not easy. Just about everybody in Congress, and in every state legislature, is a lawyer. I suspect the percentage is the same in local governments.

Lawyers are trained to feed on tax dollars; so I cannot envision more than a baker’s dozen even admitting that lawyers are at fault. One major fault is that conservatives and conservatism suffers the most at the hands of lawyers, yet a vast majority of Americans hold conservative political views. Perhaps that is why judges who control the legal profession along with media liberals despise the Tea Party Movement. 

Let’s assume Tea Partiers now have enough strength to can give Cruz the Republican party’s nomination, and let’s further assume that the Congress will go along with President Cruz and Tea Party values, it will not change a thing because the federal courts now overrule the Congress. It follows that a simple majority of High Court liberals will overrule a president they disagree with. 

My point: Tea Party conservatives have absolutely no say in appointing federal judges. That is not likely to change anytime soon because lawyers will never release their grip on who appoints judges.

With Tea Party conservatives in mind, I’ve edited some comments and thoughts from previous threads that might give Tea Partiers some idea of what they are facing: 

   It is a widely agreed upon proposition that the federal judiciary in our country is out of control; literally out of control. Federal judges increasingly act as if there are no limits to their authority to not only interpret, but to make and impose law.*

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges
         By Tim Dunkin  February 19, 2015

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges​
*Tim Dunkin’s proposed constitutional amendment does not stand a prayer in hell of reining in federal judges so long as the American people separate them from judges in local and state courts.

The article above and two more articles cover abuses by judges that are seldom mentioned by the media. Two articles by Selwyn Duke are most informative. Note that Thomas Jefferson is now under serious attack from the Left: *

Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

   That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

February 20, 2015
       Why not one governor is qualified to be president
       By Selwyn Duke

Why not one governor is qualified to be president​ 
*The second article tells us where Roe v. Wade, homosexual marriage, and socialized medicine —— to name just three desasters —— got started:*

Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision -- by the Supreme Court.

February 19, 2015
       Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President
       By Selwyn Duke

Articles Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President​
*John Marshall’s court established a judicial priesthood in Marbury v. Madison. A priesthood that is now every bit as totalitarian as ever was any  priesthood in history.

I like to think that Thomas Jefferson saw it coming. I also believe that John Marshall was a dirty little moralist who so despised a Constitution that was created without his approval he built a framework for one reason only —— to empower priests in the federal courts. Ayn Rand was surely talking about John Marshall’s intention to give priests the authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:* 

The Fountainhead Ayn Rand - Howard Roark Speech - YouTube​
*Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.* 

A judge in Washington on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.

Judge authorizes 'personal ruin' for Christian florist
       Posted By Bob Unruh
       On 02/18/2015 @ 8:35 pm

Judge authorizes personal ruin for Christian florist​
*The things one judge is doing to Barronelle Stutzmanis is only the tip of judicial moral decay. Every case decided by a judge’s personality bypasses the law. The cases I mention are extremely important, but they cannot stem the tidal wave of priests IN GOVERNMENT swamping the country.*

Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case
   Posted 9 days ago.
   By NCC Staff

Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case

*XXXXX*​
   ADF: Don’t force cake artist who supports same-sex marriage to speak against her beliefs
   Customer filed complaint with Colorado Civil Rights Commission after bakery declined to write objectionable words, symbols on cake
Friday, January 23, 2015
Attorney sound bites: Jeremy Tedesco #1 | Jeremy Tedesco #2

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig - Alliance Defending Freedom​
*Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:*

*8th  Amendment*​
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​
*13th  Amendment*​
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
   Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​
*NOTE: Congress passed a vile law —— the ACA. The High Court then circumvented the Constitution in upholding the ACA —— TWICE —— without ever addressing the meaning of involuntary servitude in the XIII Amendment.  

One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists produce with tax dollars. 

Another possible ruling says artists can decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but deciding for themselves  flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, same-sex marriage and the rest of liberalism’s blah, blah, blah. 

A third possible ruling identifies two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of  rules  for private sector artists. 

In every case of  involuntary servitude the XIII Amendment was the way to go because it protects every American when religion is not involved. 

Liberals wield artistic freedom like a club the same way Communist teachers wield academic freedom every time they want to take a liberty away from everybody else. Defeating liberalism depends upon defeating Socialist priests more than defeating an ideology: *

Legal Counsel Jim Campbell added that every artist “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views.”

       Supremes asked to halt 'compelled' lesbian speech
       Christian photographer disputes ruling loss of religious freedom is price of citizenship
       Published: 11/08/2013 at 4:14 pm
       BOB UNRUH

Supremes asked to halt compelled lesbian speech​
*Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica? *





*Liberals always pick the part they like:*

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​ 
*The First Amendment has become meaningless. The government can infringe on anyone’s religious freedom as they will with the homosexual ruling. 

The issue is whether or not Socialist priests can order the way Americans must behave? The same issue is at play in the ACA. Can Socialist priests order you to purchase anything? The answer is unquestionably YES. When framed in those words you can clearly see the evil intent behind John Roberts first calling the “forced purchase of healthcare insurance” a tax. 

Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake.

The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges at every level get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?

Incidentally, an administrative law judge is a federal judge.*

. . . it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.

   In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.

January 9, 2014
     Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
     By Jim Yardley

404 Can t Find Page - American Thinker​ 
*I know that Socialist priests  can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything is so important to Tea Partiers in the fight for individual liberties and limited government? 

Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, the cases the SCOTUS agree to hear  will be decided by 5 judges —— activist liberal judges more often than not:  

Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claimed he was defending freedom of religion, while he ran for the tall grass the minute he had to challenge every judge who orders involuntary servitude —— SLAVERY IS THE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. In short: The 8th and 13th Amendments override the First Amendment every time. 

Judges imposing forced labor on an individual’s freedom of religion is surely cruel and unusual punishment without using whips and chains.

In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so. Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.  

Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.* 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
       October 21, 2009
       By Matt COVER

Hoyer Says Constitution s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance​
*I can only pray that a judge does not single out pepperoni pizza!*

Indiana Pizza Shop: We Won’t Serve Gay Weddings
   April 1, 2015 9:58 AM

Indiana pizza shop we won t serve gay weddings CBS Cleveland​
*I was floored when talking heads gave so much coverage to the pizza guy. I wagered that the story would be ignored because there is not an actual pizza case in the court —— at least not YET. 

The way media  reported the pizza story is annoying to me because media mouths refuse to touch the 8th and the 13th Amendments in those cases that have been in the courts for several years, yet never a word was heard about involuntary servitude. Pizza reportage is no different than the other cases of involuntary servitude before it even gets to court. Happily, Joseph Farah touched on the heart of the matter:*

Have you noticed we didn’t have any notable conflicts with non-discrimination laws until we decided to include among the protected groups one that is behavior-based?

*XXXXX*​ 
   . . . the advent of laws and judicial rulings prohibiting discrimination against people based on lifestyle choices and behavior, things got, predictably, a little more complicated.

*XXXXX*​ 
   We are rapidly giving up our individual liberties in favor of collective coercion overseen by state power that is unaccountably lethal.

The problem with 'non-discrimination' laws
       Posted By Joseph Farah
       On 04/02/2015 @ 7:16 pm

The problem with non-discrimination laws​
*I have one slight disagreement with Mr. Farah. 

Involuntary servitude infested ‘civilization’ since the dawn of time; so it can hardly be called complicated after all of the eons forced labor has been embodied in the law in every Judicial Code of Conduct ever written —— with the single exception of America’s founding documents.  

Admittedly, it took a while to abolish the most brutal form of slavery. To be precise, replacing involuntary servitude enforced by a whip was replaced by legislated love. Look at it this way. No priesthood creates freedom from organized religion. Conversely, America’s Socialist priesthood created a slave class; i.e., a parasite class that can only acquire individual liberties from legislated love or not at all.   

Finally,  Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO. 

It is worth repeating Eric Hoffer —— in large font:
*
*THE BASIC TEST OF FREEDOM IS PERHAPS LESS IN WHAT WE ARE FREE TO DO THAN IN WHAT WE ARE FREE NOT TO DO. IT IS THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN, WITHDRAW AND ABSTAIN WHICH MAKES A TOTALITARIAN REGIME IMPOSSIBLE. *


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ted Cruz is a horse's ass and has no effect on real politics since the fall of 2013 when he failed spectacularly.


----------



## PratchettFan

Flanders said:


> *Doing nothing is often the best course of action, while doing something about the Nifty Nine can hardly do more harm rather than doing nothing:*
> 
> June 28, 2015
> Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices
> By Rick Moran
> 
> Blog Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices​
> *Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer whose heart in the right place, nevertheless, I am not sure his suggestion will rein in Supreme Court justices —— LAWYERS ALL —— let alone rein in lesser judges —— LAWYERS ALL. The question should be: What is to be done about lawyers? The answer is not easy. Just about everybody in Congress, and in every state legislature, is a lawyer. I suspect the percentage is the same in local governments.
> 
> Lawyers are trained to feed on tax dollars; so I cannot envision more than a baker’s dozen even admitting that lawyers are at fault. One major fault is that conservatives and conservatism suffers the most at the hands of lawyers, yet a vast majority of Americans hold conservative political views. Perhaps that is why judges who control the legal profession along with media liberals despise the Tea Party Movement.
> 
> Let’s assume Tea Partiers now have enough strength to can give Cruz the Republican party’s nomination, and let’s further assume that the Congress will go along with President Cruz and Tea Party values, it will not change a thing because the federal courts now overrule the Congress. It follows that a simple majority of High Court liberals will overrule a president they disagree with.
> 
> My point: Tea Party conservatives have absolutely no say in appointing federal judges. That is not likely to change anytime soon because lawyers will never release their grip on who appoints judges.
> 
> With Tea Party conservatives in mind, I’ve edited some comments and thoughts from previous threads that might give Tea Partiers some idea of what they are facing:
> 
> It is a widely agreed upon proposition that the federal judiciary in our country is out of control; literally out of control. Federal judges increasingly act as if there are no limits to their authority to not only interpret, but to make and impose law.*
> 
> A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges
> By Tim Dunkin  February 19, 2015
> 
> A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges​
> *Tim Dunkin’s proposed constitutional amendment does not stand a prayer in hell of reining in federal judges so long as the American people separate them from judges in local and state courts.
> 
> The article above and two more articles cover abuses by judges that are seldom mentioned by the media. Two articles by Selwyn Duke are most informative. Note that Thomas Jefferson is now under serious attack from the Left: *
> 
> Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.
> 
> That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”
> 
> February 20, 2015
> Why not one governor is qualified to be president
> By Selwyn Duke
> 
> Why not one governor is qualified to be president​
> *The second article tells us where Roe v. Wade, homosexual marriage, and socialized medicine —— to name just three desasters —— got started:*
> 
> Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision -- by the Supreme Court.
> 
> February 19, 2015
> Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President
> By Selwyn Duke
> 
> Articles Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President​
> *John Marshall’s court established a judicial priesthood in Marbury v. Madison. A priesthood that is now every bit as totalitarian as ever was any  priesthood in history.
> 
> I like to think that Thomas Jefferson saw it coming. I also believe that John Marshall was a dirty little moralist who so despised a Constitution that was created without his approval he built a framework for one reason only —— to empower priests in the federal courts. Ayn Rand was surely talking about John Marshall’s intention to give priests the authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:*
> 
> The Fountainhead Ayn Rand - Howard Roark Speech - YouTube​
> *Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.*
> 
> A judge in Washington on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.
> 
> Judge authorizes 'personal ruin' for Christian florist
> Posted By Bob Unruh
> On 02/18/2015 @ 8:35 pm
> 
> Judge authorizes personal ruin for Christian florist​
> *The things one judge is doing to Barronelle Stutzmanis is only the tip of judicial moral decay. Every case decided by a judge’s personality bypasses the law. The cases I mention are extremely important, but they cannot stem the tidal wave of priests IN GOVERNMENT swamping the country.*
> 
> Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case
> Posted 9 days ago.
> By NCC Staff
> 
> Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> ADF: Don’t force cake artist who supports same-sex marriage to speak against her beliefs
> Customer filed complaint with Colorado Civil Rights Commission after bakery declined to write objectionable words, symbols on cake
> Friday, January 23, 2015
> Attorney sound bites: Jeremy Tedesco #1 | Jeremy Tedesco #2
> 
> Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig - Alliance Defending Freedom​
> *Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:*
> 
> *8th  Amendment*​
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​
> *13th  Amendment*​
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​
> *NOTE: Congress passed a vile law —— the ACA. The High Court then circumvented the Constitution in upholding the ACA —— TWICE —— without ever addressing the meaning of involuntary servitude in the XIII Amendment.
> 
> One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists produce with tax dollars.
> 
> Another possible ruling says artists can decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but deciding for themselves  flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, same-sex marriage and the rest of liberalism’s blah, blah, blah.
> 
> A third possible ruling identifies two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of  rules  for private sector artists.
> 
> In every case of  involuntary servitude the XIII Amendment was the way to go because it protects every American when religion is not involved.
> 
> Liberals wield artistic freedom like a club the same way Communist teachers wield academic freedom every time they want to take a liberty away from everybody else. Defeating liberalism depends upon defeating Socialist priests more than defeating an ideology: *
> 
> Legal Counsel Jim Campbell added that every artist “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views.”
> 
> Supremes asked to halt 'compelled' lesbian speech
> Christian photographer disputes ruling loss of religious freedom is price of citizenship
> Published: 11/08/2013 at 4:14 pm
> BOB UNRUH
> 
> Supremes asked to halt compelled lesbian speech​
> *Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals always pick the part they like:*
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
> *The First Amendment has become meaningless. The government can infringe on anyone’s religious freedom as they will with the homosexual ruling.
> 
> The issue is whether or not Socialist priests can order the way Americans must behave? The same issue is at play in the ACA. Can Socialist priests order you to purchase anything? The answer is unquestionably YES. When framed in those words you can clearly see the evil intent behind John Roberts first calling the “forced purchase of healthcare insurance” a tax.
> 
> Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake.
> 
> The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges at every level get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?
> 
> Incidentally, an administrative law judge is a federal judge.*
> 
> . . . it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.
> 
> In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.
> 
> January 9, 2014
> Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
> By Jim Yardley
> 
> 404 Can t Find Page - American Thinker​
> *I know that Socialist priests  can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything is so important to Tea Partiers in the fight for individual liberties and limited government?
> 
> Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, the cases the SCOTUS agree to hear  will be decided by 5 judges —— activist liberal judges more often than not:
> 
> Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claimed he was defending freedom of religion, while he ran for the tall grass the minute he had to challenge every judge who orders involuntary servitude —— SLAVERY IS THE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. In short: The 8th and 13th Amendments override the First Amendment every time.
> 
> Judges imposing forced labor on an individual’s freedom of religion is surely cruel and unusual punishment without using whips and chains.
> 
> In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so. Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.
> 
> Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.*
> 
> House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
> 
> Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
> October 21, 2009
> By Matt COVER
> 
> Hoyer Says Constitution s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance​
> *I can only pray that a judge does not single out pepperoni pizza!*
> 
> Indiana Pizza Shop: We Won’t Serve Gay Weddings
> April 1, 2015 9:58 AM
> 
> Indiana pizza shop we won t serve gay weddings CBS Cleveland​
> *I was floored when talking heads gave so much coverage to the pizza guy. I wagered that the story would be ignored because there is not an actual pizza case in the court —— at least not YET.
> 
> The way media  reported the pizza story is annoying to me because media mouths refuse to touch the 8th and the 13th Amendments in those cases that have been in the courts for several years, yet never a word was heard about involuntary servitude. Pizza reportage is no different than the other cases of involuntary servitude before it even gets to court. Happily, Joseph Farah touched on the heart of the matter:*
> 
> Have you noticed we didn’t have any notable conflicts with non-discrimination laws until we decided to include among the protected groups one that is behavior-based?
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> . . . the advent of laws and judicial rulings prohibiting discrimination against people based on lifestyle choices and behavior, things got, predictably, a little more complicated.
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> We are rapidly giving up our individual liberties in favor of collective coercion overseen by state power that is unaccountably lethal.
> 
> The problem with 'non-discrimination' laws
> Posted By Joseph Farah
> On 04/02/2015 @ 7:16 pm
> 
> The problem with non-discrimination laws​
> *I have one slight disagreement with Mr. Farah.
> 
> Involuntary servitude infested ‘civilization’ since the dawn of time; so it can hardly be called complicated after all of the eons forced labor has been embodied in the law in every Judicial Code of Conduct ever written —— with the single exception of America’s founding documents.
> 
> Admittedly, it took a while to abolish the most brutal form of slavery. To be precise, replacing involuntary servitude enforced by a whip was replaced by legislated love. Look at it this way. No priesthood creates freedom from organized religion. Conversely, America’s Socialist priesthood created a slave class; i.e., a parasite class that can only acquire individual liberties from legislated love or not at all.
> 
> Finally,  Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.
> 
> It is worth repeating Eric Hoffer —— in large font:
> *
> *THE BASIC TEST OF FREEDOM IS PERHAPS LESS IN WHAT WE ARE FREE TO DO THAN IN WHAT WE ARE FREE NOT TO DO. IT IS THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN, WITHDRAW AND ABSTAIN WHICH MAKES A TOTALITARIAN REGIME IMPOSSIBLE. *


 
Not going to happen. Not even a little tiny bit.  More to the point, Cruz knows it not only isn't going to happen but would be bad for the country if it did.  All he's doing is playing to his base in a blatant and utterly dishonest political move.


----------



## Flanders

JakeStarkey said:


> Ted Cruz is a horse's ass and has no effect on real politics since the fall of 2013 when he failed spectacularly.





PratchettFan said:


> More to the point, Cruz knows it not only isn't going to happen but would be bad for the country if it did. All he's doing is playing to his base in a blatant and utterly dishonest political move.


*To JakeStarkey & PratchettFan:  You already live in a country where 90 percent of the judges and legislators are Socialist priests. So how would you like to live in a country where every judge and legislator is a Muslim cleric, a Rabbi, or a Catholic priest? Should Cruz, or anybody else, fail to strip judges of their UNCONSTITUTIONAL authority you lose as much as Tea Party conservatives lose. That is assuming you resent being governed by sick moralists telling you how to live. *


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders, how sick are you today?  Really?  Your meds are way off.


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> That is assuming you resent being governed by sick moralists telling you how to live.





JakeStarkey said:


> Flanders, how sick are you today? Really? Your meds are way off.


*To JakeStarkey: I assume that my only cure is for you to live the way I force you to live! *


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders,  you don't even have control of your own life in the sanitarium.  Post away, my little bud.


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.


*The lawyers are coming out from under their rocks. One judge/lawyer took the first step on the road to protecting the entire priesthood:*

In response to a protester who shouted that the judicial system is “corrupt,” a Florida judge ordered the arrest of anyone outside the courthouse, including on certain public sidewalks, who “call(s) into question the integrity of the court or any of its judges.”

   The order was released July 1 by Judge Mark Mahon of the state’s Fourth Judicial Circuit.

   Among others, it was addressed to bar associations, senior judges, administrative judges, magistrates, public defenders, state attorneys, clerks, lawyers and the sheriffs in Jacksonville, Clay and Nassau counties.

Protest judicial corruption, go to jail
     Posted By Bob Unruh On 07/06/2015 @ 7:37 pm

Protest judicial corruption go to jail​
*Even if protestors chanted “Lawyers” instead of the word judges, lawyer Mahon’s order shielded every lawyer/priest and the faithful. Put it in perspective by looking at priesthoods with authority in every society in every time.

Finally, lawyer Mahon extended his physical structure —— the courthouse —— to an area beyond his chapel. Turning a few sidewalks into sacred ground is only the beginning. In every theocracy in every country speaking evil of priests, or their religion —— everywhere —— ends with infidels on the rack.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Doesn't matter.  The Fl judge's ruling won't stand up.  SCOTUS will.  That's the end of it.


----------



## Flanders

JakeStarkey said:


> Doesn't matter. The Fl judge's ruling won't stand up. SCOTUS will. That's the end of it.


*To JakeStarkey: I assume you mean the SCOTUS will overturn Judge Mahon. If that is what you mean I have my doubts. Happily, it will not get there: *

A Florida judge has quickly backtracked on his order barring people from criticizing the court on its property but not quickly enough to avoid a lawsuit over the speech restrictions.​
*Incidentally, it is 4 ½ Supreme Court justices that make me think Mahon’s order would have stood up. Roberts and Kennedy are ½-ass —— either one can be counted on to provide the fifth vote. 

Finally, Ginsburg behaves as though powers are vested in her to do as she pleases. Every liberal judge believes that the Constitution is akin to a sales flyer one finds stuck under a windshield wiper advertising their personal beliefs.* 

And WND reported when Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said Ginsburg could be impeached for her public advocacy of “gay” rights while the court was reviewing that very issue.

*XXXXX*​
   The controversy resurfaced shortly before the decision was announced, because even after being told of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Ginsburg again officiated at a same-sex wedding, as the New York Times reported.

   The paper said that with “a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”

Censoring judge makes stunning reversal
       Posted By Bob Unruh On 07/12/2015 @ 6:33

Censoring judge makes stunning reversal​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders, SCOTUS follows the Constitution not TP dogma.

This judge was very wise to back up.  

Neither Roberts nor Kennedy would supported the judge, imo.


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:
> 
> *8th Amendment*​Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
> *13th Amendment*​Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.





Flanders said:


> Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step* —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.*
> 
> House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
> 
> Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
> October 21, 2009
> By Matt COVER
> 
> Hoyer Says Constitution s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance


*Involuntary servitude is alive and well: *

By a 2-1 vote July 14, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Obama administration can force the nuns to provide their employees with the drugs, which violate Roman Catholic teaching.​ 
Court suspends contraceptive mandate for Little Sisters
     Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/21/2015 @ 8:37 pm

Court suspends contraceptive mandate for Little Sisters​
*This brief excerpt sums it up perfectly:*

The difference between the cases where the person can refuse service and those in which the person cannot is no longer one of law.  The rules do not matter anymore.  Not even the facts matter anymore.  All that matters is status.​ 
April 16, 2015
       Involuntary Servitude Returns to America
       By Jack Golbert

Articles: Involuntary Servitude Returns to America​


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far right will never again impose servitude on those they don't like.

Remember how they screamed in the Civil War that Lincoln was talking away their free shit, their slaves?

America follows the Rule of Law not the Rule of Man.


----------



## Stephanie

did you all get that? TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES. because by golly they can't be NOTHING else according to the leftewing Democrats and the violent Blacklivesmatters

so now they are trying to Revive the Tea Party again. because they have nothing else so who's shocked by it?


----------



## Flanders

JakeStarkey said:


> America follows the Rule of Law not the Rule of Law.


*To JakeStarkey: Which way is it!*


----------



## jwoodie

We need another Andrew Jackson:  Let judges try to enforce their idiotic decisions.


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.


*They are finally getting to the 13th Amendment and involuntary servitude: *

. . . let's talk about the 13th Amendment, which outlaws involuntary servitude. In other words, the government cannot force people to take specific actions. There are exceptions, for things like paying taxes, community service, and the draft, but generally speaking the government cannot compel people to commit acts--it's too much like slavery. Furthermore

   In more recent cases, the Supreme Court has defined involuntary servitude broadly to forbid work forced by the use or threat of physical restraint or injury or through law.

   In other words, people generally cannot be forced to do something through threat of incarceration. That's exactly what's been done to Ms. Davis. The courts are violating the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by incarcerating her, to support their own made up right to homosexual marriage.

Kim Davis jailed in violation of 10th and 13th amendments

Kim Davis jailed in violation of 10th and 13th amendments​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.
> 
> 
> 
> *They are finally getting to the 13th Amendment and involuntary servitude: *
> 
> . . . let's talk about the 13th Amendment, which outlaws involuntary servitude. In other words, the government cannot force people to take specific actions. There are exceptions, for things like paying taxes, community service, and the draft, but generally speaking the government cannot compel people to commit acts--it's too much like slavery. Furthermore
> 
> In more recent cases, the Supreme Court has defined involuntary servitude broadly to forbid work forced by the use or threat of physical restraint or injury or through law.
> 
> In other words, people generally cannot be forced to do something through threat of incarceration. That's exactly what's been done to Ms. Davis. The courts are violating the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by incarcerating her, to support their own made up right to homosexual marriage.
> 
> Kim Davis jailed in violation of 10th and 13th amendments
> 
> Kim Davis jailed in violation of 10th and 13th amendments​
Click to expand...

Yeah, try that on a court.


----------



## RodISHI

Flanders said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.
> 
> 
> 
> *They are finally getting to the 13th Amendment and involuntary servitude: *
> 
> . . . let's talk about the 13th Amendment, which outlaws involuntary servitude. In other words, the government cannot force people to take specific actions. There are exceptions, for things like paying taxes, community service, and the draft, but generally speaking the government cannot compel people to commit acts--it's too much like slavery. Furthermore
> 
> In more recent cases, the Supreme Court has defined involuntary servitude broadly to forbid work forced by the use or threat of physical restraint or injury or through law.
> 
> In other words, people generally cannot be forced to do something through threat of incarceration. That's exactly what's been done to Ms. Davis. The courts are violating the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by incarcerating her, to support their own made up right to homosexual marriage.
> 
> Kim Davis jailed in violation of 10th and 13th amendments
> 
> Kim Davis jailed in violation of 10th and 13th amendments​
Click to expand...

Even local Judges do try to force their will onto people Flanders right or wrong. We had one in a meeting in chambers some years back that wanted me to sign a Quit Claim for property and when I would not put my name on the erroneous document he became very insulant as if that would change my mind. It may very well have for some people but luckily I'd already been run through the mill and spit out years before. Once you steal everything you can from someone or you leave them broke and destitute there is not a whole lot left to bank on in trying to compel them into your way of thinking. It reaches a critical point and a lot of these sick people, the politicians that have gone along with them and their judges out there are going to see where and are seeing even now where that critical point breaks.

Some of us rights do not matter in the eyes of the courts and their unjust interpretations' of the law. We have no rights even though the primary basis for the laws of the land claims we do. Our right to have our own religious beliefs are not protected, there are those in position of authority believing we have no choice concerning our own education, our right to freely work and keep what we worked for, freedom to peacefully speak is surely not protected (I been threaten with arrest more than once and actually falsely arrested before) and the freedom to build businesses is not protected in our country, nor is our property protected that we worked and saved for protected and now there are a certain groups that believe they have the right to even overcome our very own thoughts. It is a sad thing to watch transpire as I read through the various news articles and comments throughout the Internet.


----------



## Flanders

RodISHI said:


> Even local Judges do try to force their will onto people Flanders right or wrong. We had one in a meeting in chambers some years back that wanted me to sign a Quit Claim for property and when I would not put my name on the erroneous document he became very insulant as if that would change my mind.


*To PodISHI: Good points. 

I’m glad you talked about local judges. Most Americans think about judges in relation to the Supreme Court who are the most corrupt judges of all. The fact is that less than a few thousand Americans have ever been abused personally by Supreme Court Justice; their decisions hide individual abuse because their rulings affect millions, while thousands of local judges abuse the Rights of individual law-abiding Americans ever day. 

Orson Welles narrating the open scene might interest you if you are not familiar with Kafka’s The Trial:*

​


----------



## RodISHI

Flanders said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even local Judges do try to force their will onto people Flanders right or wrong. We had one in a meeting in chambers some years back that wanted me to sign a Quit Claim for property and when I would not put my name on the erroneous document he became very insulant as if that would change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> *To PodISHI: Good points.
> 
> I’m glad you talked about local judges. Most Americans think about judges in relation to the Supreme Court who are the most corrupt judges of all. The fact is that less than a few thousand Americans have ever been abused personally by Supreme Court Justice; their decisions hide individual abuse because their rulings affect millions, while thousands of local judges abuse the Rights of individual law-abiding Americans ever day.
> 
> Orson Welles narrating the open few minutes in this video might interest you if you are not familiar with Kafka’s The Trial:*
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

Yes they do and when it is happening generally the one's that it happening to can't get enough breathing room to do anything about it. I've heard more lame excuses from attorneys over the years than you can shake a stick at. We grew up being fed a line about how good the system is but in fact it is really messed up. Justice should be more than just what you can afford pay for. I mean that in a sense that both judges and attorneys are corrupt or chicken shit or both.


----------



## kiwiman127

Flanders said:


> *Doing nothing is often the best course of action, while doing something about the Nifty Nine can hardly do more harm rather than doing nothing:*
> 
> June 28, 2015
> Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices
> By Rick Moran
> 
> Blog Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices​
> *Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer whose heart in the right place, nevertheless, I am not sure his suggestion will rein in Supreme Court justices —— LAWYERS ALL —— let alone rein in lesser judges —— LAWYERS ALL. The question should be: What is to be done about lawyers? The answer is not easy. Just about everybody in Congress, and in every state legislature, is a lawyer. I suspect the percentage is the same in local governments.
> 
> Lawyers are trained to feed on tax dollars; so I cannot envision more than a baker’s dozen even admitting that lawyers are at fault. One major fault is that conservatives and conservatism suffers the most at the hands of lawyers, yet a vast majority of Americans hold conservative political views. Perhaps that is why judges who control the legal profession along with media liberals despise the Tea Party Movement.
> 
> Let’s assume Tea Partiers now have enough strength to can give Cruz the Republican party’s nomination, and let’s further assume that the Congress will go along with President Cruz and Tea Party values, it will not change a thing because the federal courts now overrule the Congress. It follows that a simple majority of High Court liberals will overrule a president they disagree with.
> 
> My point: Tea Party conservatives have absolutely no say in appointing federal judges. That is not likely to change anytime soon because lawyers will never release their grip on who appoints judges.
> 
> With Tea Party conservatives in mind, I’ve edited some comments and thoughts from previous threads that might give Tea Partiers some idea of what they are facing:
> 
> It is a widely agreed upon proposition that the federal judiciary in our country is out of control; literally out of control. Federal judges increasingly act as if there are no limits to their authority to not only interpret, but to make and impose law.*
> 
> A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges
> By Tim Dunkin  February 19, 2015
> 
> A Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Reining in Judges​
> *Tim Dunkin’s proposed constitutional amendment does not stand a prayer in hell of reining in federal judges so long as the American people separate them from judges in local and state courts.
> 
> The article above and two more articles cover abuses by judges that are seldom mentioned by the media. Two articles by Selwyn Duke are most informative. Note that Thomas Jefferson is now under serious attack from the Left: *
> 
> Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.
> 
> That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”
> 
> February 20, 2015
> Why not one governor is qualified to be president
> By Selwyn Duke
> 
> Why not one governor is qualified to be president​
> *The second article tells us where Roe v. Wade, homosexual marriage, and socialized medicine —— to name just three desasters —— got started:*
> 
> Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision -- by the Supreme Court.
> 
> February 19, 2015
> Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President
> By Selwyn Duke
> 
> Articles Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President​
> *John Marshall’s court established a judicial priesthood in Marbury v. Madison. A priesthood that is now every bit as totalitarian as ever was any  priesthood in history.
> 
> I like to think that Thomas Jefferson saw it coming. I also believe that John Marshall was a dirty little moralist who so despised a Constitution that was created without his approval he built a framework for one reason only —— to empower priests in the federal courts. Ayn Rand was surely talking about John Marshall’s intention to give priests the authority to bring back every one of mankind’s horrors and destruction in this country:*
> 
> The Fountainhead Ayn Rand - Howard Roark Speech - YouTube​
> *Bob Unruh’s piece covers a ruling that shows priests now sit on benches in every court. Total the Christian clergy, Rabbis, Muslim clerics, etc., and they do not equal all of America’s priests dictating moral conduct from the bench.*
> 
> A judge in Washington on Wednesday authorized the “personal ruin” of a florist whose Christian faith prevented her from promoting a same-sex wedding and who was sued by both the state and the homosexual couple.
> 
> Judge authorizes 'personal ruin' for Christian florist
> Posted By Bob Unruh
> On 02/18/2015 @ 8:35 pm
> 
> Judge authorizes personal ruin for Christian florist​
> *The things one judge is doing to Barronelle Stutzmanis is only the tip of judicial moral decay. Every case decided by a judge’s personality bypasses the law. The cases I mention are extremely important, but they cannot stem the tidal wave of priests IN GOVERNMENT swamping the country.*
> 
> Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case
> Posted 9 days ago.
> By NCC Staff
> 
> Supreme Court Justices to ponder New Mexico photographer case
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> ADF: Don’t force cake artist who supports same-sex marriage to speak against her beliefs
> Customer filed complaint with Colorado Civil Rights Commission after bakery declined to write objectionable words, symbols on cake
> Friday, January 23, 2015
> Attorney sound bites: Jeremy Tedesco #1 | Jeremy Tedesco #2
> 
> Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig - Alliance Defending Freedom​
> *Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:*
> 
> *8th  Amendment*​
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​
> *13th  Amendment*​
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​
> *NOTE: Congress passed a vile law —— the ACA. The High Court then circumvented the Constitution in upholding the ACA —— TWICE —— without ever addressing the meaning of involuntary servitude in the XIII Amendment.
> 
> One possible ruling in involuntary servitude cases says that artists must work for anybody willing to hire them. That is the exact opposite of the garbage the National Endowment for the Arts promotes to justify the filth government-approved artists produce with tax dollars.
> 
> Another possible ruling says artists can decide for themselves which is more in line with NEA thinking, but deciding for themselves  flies in the face of gay Rights, equal Rights, same-sex marriage and the rest of liberalism’s blah, blah, blah.
> 
> A third possible ruling identifies two sets of rules; one for government “artists” and another set of  rules  for private sector artists.
> 
> In every case of  involuntary servitude the XIII Amendment was the way to go because it protects every American when religion is not involved.
> 
> Liberals wield artistic freedom like a club the same way Communist teachers wield academic freedom every time they want to take a liberty away from everybody else. Defeating liberalism depends upon defeating Socialist priests more than defeating an ideology: *
> 
> Legal Counsel Jim Campbell added that every artist “must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views.”
> 
> Supremes asked to halt 'compelled' lesbian speech
> Christian photographer disputes ruling loss of religious freedom is price of citizenship
> Published: 11/08/2013 at 4:14 pm
> BOB UNRUH
> 
> Supremes asked to halt compelled lesbian speech​
> *Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberals always pick the part they like:*
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
> *The First Amendment has become meaningless. The government can infringe on anyone’s religious freedom as they will with the homosexual ruling.
> 
> The issue is whether or not Socialist priests can order the way Americans must behave? The same issue is at play in the ACA. Can Socialist priests order you to purchase anything? The answer is unquestionably YES. When framed in those words you can clearly see the evil intent behind John Roberts first calling the “forced purchase of healthcare insurance” a tax.
> 
> Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake.
> 
> The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges at every level get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?
> 
> Incidentally, an administrative law judge is a federal judge.*
> 
> . . . it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.
> 
> In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.
> 
> January 9, 2014
> Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
> By Jim Yardley
> 
> 404 Can t Find Page - American Thinker​
> *I know that Socialist priests  can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything is so important to Tea Partiers in the fight for individual liberties and limited government?
> 
> Irrespective of the issues, or how the judges get to the bench, the cases the SCOTUS agree to hear  will be decided by 5 judges —— activist liberal judges more often than not:
> 
> Defending the First Amendment has become a twisted joke. Governor Mike Pence claimed he was defending freedom of religion, while he ran for the tall grass the minute he had to challenge every judge who orders involuntary servitude —— SLAVERY IS THE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. In short: The 8th and 13th Amendments override the First Amendment every time.
> 
> Judges imposing forced labor on an individual’s freedom of religion is surely cruel and unusual punishment without using whips and chains.
> 
> In plain English, every law that is passed becomes “appropriate legislation” so long as a judge says it is so. Note that calling “Not doing something” became a crime a judge can punish.
> 
> Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.*
> 
> House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
> 
> Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
> October 21, 2009
> By Matt COVER
> 
> Hoyer Says Constitution s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance​
> *I can only pray that a judge does not single out pepperoni pizza!*
> 
> Indiana Pizza Shop: We Won’t Serve Gay Weddings
> April 1, 2015 9:58 AM
> 
> Indiana pizza shop we won t serve gay weddings CBS Cleveland​
> *I was floored when talking heads gave so much coverage to the pizza guy. I wagered that the story would be ignored because there is not an actual pizza case in the court —— at least not YET.
> 
> The way media  reported the pizza story is annoying to me because media mouths refuse to touch the 8th and the 13th Amendments in those cases that have been in the courts for several years, yet never a word was heard about involuntary servitude. Pizza reportage is no different than the other cases of involuntary servitude before it even gets to court. Happily, Joseph Farah touched on the heart of the matter:*
> 
> Have you noticed we didn’t have any notable conflicts with non-discrimination laws until we decided to include among the protected groups one that is behavior-based?
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> . . . the advent of laws and judicial rulings prohibiting discrimination against people based on lifestyle choices and behavior, things got, predictably, a little more complicated.
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> We are rapidly giving up our individual liberties in favor of collective coercion overseen by state power that is unaccountably lethal.
> 
> The problem with 'non-discrimination' laws
> Posted By Joseph Farah
> On 04/02/2015 @ 7:16 pm
> 
> The problem with non-discrimination laws​
> *I have one slight disagreement with Mr. Farah.
> 
> Involuntary servitude infested ‘civilization’ since the dawn of time; so it can hardly be called complicated after all of the eons forced labor has been embodied in the law in every Judicial Code of Conduct ever written —— with the single exception of America’s founding documents.
> 
> Admittedly, it took a while to abolish the most brutal form of slavery. To be precise, replacing involuntary servitude enforced by a whip was replaced by legislated love. Look at it this way. No priesthood creates freedom from organized religion. Conversely, America’s Socialist priesthood created a slave class; i.e., a parasite class that can only acquire individual liberties from legislated love or not at all.
> 
> Finally,  Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.
> 
> It is worth repeating Eric Hoffer —— in large font:
> *
> *THE BASIC TEST OF FREEDOM IS PERHAPS LESS IN WHAT WE ARE FREE TO DO THAN IN WHAT WE ARE FREE NOT TO DO. IT IS THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN, WITHDRAW AND ABSTAIN WHICH MAKES A TOTALITARIAN REGIME IMPOSSIBLE. *



Your scenario requires a strong Tea Party, yet a recent Gallup Poll that support for the Tea Party at an all time low at 19% support.  This is supported by the dismal Tea Party showing in the 2014 primaries.


----------



## RodISHI

That video is ironic. A magistrate claimed god status in "his" courtroom. The people agreed with an editorial in the primary local paper that he was not God their Father or a god their courtroom. The people voted him off the bench and political connections gave him another position as the poor man could not find a job after that. Still though the people he cost both emotionally and financially thousands of dollars each personally were never compensated for the loses he force upon them through the corrupt system he willingly created in his court along with a corrupt attorneys who made deals there or corrupt prosecutors who prosecuted non crimes in the peoples courtroom. When people willingly look away in the face of injustices perpetrated on what they think is 'those people over there'  it just gets worse and worse until the system hits a critical breaking point.


----------



## Flanders

kiwiman127 said:


> Your scenario requires a strong Tea Party, yet a recent Gallup Poll that support for the Tea Party at an all time low at 19% support. This is supported by the dismal Tea Party showing in the 2014 primaries.


*To kiwiman127: Sad but true. It has a lot to do with media coverage. 

Tea Party conservatism still represents a splinter party within the Republican party. On the bright side, a Karl Rove Republican cannot win without conservatives. *


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> Congress gave sick judges like John Roberts & Company the weapon priests needed to tear down freedom of religion, while perverting the 8th, and the 13th amendments. Forcing Americans to purchase products pales beside the inevitable next step —— INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.


*UPDATE*​*
The issue of involuntary servitude is not addressed: *

Court told facts don't support 'anti-gay bias' at Christian bakery
   Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/05/2016 @ 8:53 pm

Court told facts don’t support ‘anti-gay bias’ at Christian bakery​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Yes, Cruz's ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law is already well established.

Just because most conservatives are upset that the Constitution prohibits them from denying women and gay Americans their civil rights doesn't justify doing away with the rule of law.


----------



## Flanders

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Just because most conservatives are upset that the Constitution prohibits them from denying women and gay Americans their civil rights doesn't justify doing away with the rule of law.


*To C_Clayton_Jones: You know where you can shove special privileges that parasites call civil rights.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders is testy this morning.


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> *8th Amendment*​Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
> *13th Amendment*​Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


*I have a hunch that the homosexual community will drop their case if Washington State’s high court rules for Barronelle Stutzman. Should it go all the way to the SCOTUS, the decision might go nationwide against the homosexual agenda.*

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review the case against a florist who was penalized for following her Christian faith and refusing to support a “gay wedding” with her artistic talent.

   The brief order from the Supreme Court of Washington was signed by Barbara Madsen, the chief justice, and said tersely that the court would “retain this case for hearing and decision.”

   The fight involves penalties that the state is imposing on Barronelle Stutzman, a longtime florist who was accused of discrimination when she declined to violate her Christian faith and provide her artistic talents for the same-sex “wedding” being planned by a longtime customer.

   The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is working on court on behalf of Stutzman, explained at issue are the penalties and attorneys’ fees a lower court ordered her to pay “for declining to use her artistic abilities to design custom floral arrangements for a longtime customer’s same-sex ceremony.”

Christian targeted for 'personal destruction' has new hope
       Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/06/2016 @ 3:40 pm

Christian targeted for ‘personal destruction’ has new hope​
*Worse still, upholding the 8th & 13th Amendments would demolish Socialism’s agenda summed up in one sentence:*


Flanders said:


> Socialism/Communism is lethal because Communists, indeed every priesthood, can only govern when a free people agree to behave by the dictates legislated love demands —— i.e. telling everyone what they must do rather than telling everyone what they MUST NOT DO.


*NOTE: Barronelle Stutzman’s case makes Scalia’s replacement extremely important.*


----------



## Flanders

*UPDATE*​
*John Kasich is not one to miss an opportunity. I guess there are more churchgoers than bakers, florists, and photographers:*

As our Great Sexual Heresy continues its march onwards and downwards, state governments have forced bakers, wedding planners, florists and other businessmen to service faux weddings. This is unprecedented, as never before were Americans governmentally compelled to participate in events they found morally objectionable. Yet when some project out on our cultural trajectory and say churches one day will be subject to the same coercion, they’re met with laughter; this will never, ever happen, they’re told. Yet this is an illogical and inconsistent position.

   Prefacing a statement in opposition to the hapless bakers at a campaign stop a while back, presidential pretender John Kasich opined, “I think, frankly, our churches should not be forced to do anything that’s not consistent with them.” That such a statement need be made — and that it was said so lukewarmly — indicates we’ve already taken the first step toward just such coercion. Yet the main point is that the position reflects fuzzy thinking.​
If Bakers Can be Forced to Service Faux Weddings, so Can Churches
       By Selwyn Duke
       April 3, 2016

If Bakers Can be Forced to Service Faux Weddings, so Can Churches​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, Flanders, your worries are met with laughter.


----------



## Flanders

The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a Christian baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriage ceremonies. The court’s decision Monday means the previous appellate court ruling against the Christian bakers will stand.​
Christian Baker Forced To Bake Gay Wedding Cakes Or Make No Wedding Cakes At All
       Photo of Casey Harper
       Casey Harper
       8:51 AM 04/26/2016

Christian Baker Forced To Bake Gay Wedding Cakes Or Make No Wedding Cakes At All​
*Lawyers should fight those cases on involuntary servitude because they will never win based religious freedom:*


Flanders said:


> *8th Amendment*​Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
> *13th Amendment*​Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


*The fact is that nobody in today’s government, including lawyers, will tamper with their authority to order a free people to perform the kind of work they must do, when they will do it, and the reason they must obey.  

Basically, judicial priests are replacing individual moral choices with the morality of  freaks, perverts, and criminals, wearing black robes. *


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can make all the cakes you want, and when you hold the service out to the public if your state has PA laws, you are bound by them, bud.


----------



## Flanders

JakeStarkey said:


> You can make all the cakes you want, and when you hold the service out to the public if your state has PA laws, you are bound by them, bud.


*To JakeStarkey: ASSHOLE. No law overrides the Constitution let alone a ruling by a judge.  

Since you insist on making a fool of yourself, tell us why a bureaucrat placing a gag order on the Kleins is constitutional: *

In addition to ruling the Kleins must pay $135,000, Avakian also ordered the former bakery owners to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

   “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication … to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote in the final order.

*XXXXX*​ 
   “There are aspects of their beliefs and of this case, including aspects of their religious beliefs about marriage, that if they were to share these things publicly, that the government could punish them, saying that it amounts to the equivalent of advertising their intention to continue engaging in illegal discrimination,” Klukowski said.

   “That censors so much protected speech.”

   The punishment for violating the order is “notoriously unspecific,” Klukowski added. Because of that, lawyers for the Kleins are treading carefully on what they allow their clients to do and say in public.

*XXXXX *​ 
   In reviewing the appeal, the Oregon Appeal Court will determine whether or not the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ constitutional rights to religious freedom, free speech, and due process.   

Oregon Bakers Continue Legal Fight, Challenging ‘Gag Order’
       Kelsey Harkness
       April 25, 2016

Oregon Bakers Challenge 'Gag Order’​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders, you are a goof ball.  Your interpretation is just that, yours, and no one has to abide by it.  Yell and smell all you want, but there it is.


----------



## I amso IR

Where is the problem? The judge issued a cease and desist order. The business did so. Of their own decision I might add. There is not a cease and desist order written that must be honored if one feels they are correct in their stand. Liberals disrespect court rulings often. Why, the squeaking wheel gets the grease! Something conservatives have yet to learn. Think about it, both the cease and desist order and the Constitution are written on paper and if one can be ignored so can the other.


----------



## Flanders

I amso IR said:


> Think about it, both the cease and desist order and the Constitution are written on paper and if one can be ignored so can the other.


*To I amso IR: Judges cannot ignore. At least they are not supposed to. *


----------



## I amso IR

Thank you for responding. However, Judges ignore with regularity. It is termed, "honor among thieves". Now were they to "cut the baby in half" there would be compliance with the law. Judges do not have a simple job, and they must decide what they feel is the best course of action. No doubt the judge did that in this case and the business followed his guidance. But they did not have to. Would there have been consequences, yes, but the fact remains, they did not have to, period! Of course that takes resources they probably do not have and the liberals do. The judge knew that and took a legal route out of the mess. But the fact remains, no one person can be issued a valid cease and desist, not when there are personal values at stake involving two different parties involved. President Obama has proven that over and over again and he is still President. Now go ahead Jake, lets hear your two cents worth.


----------



## Flanders

I amso IR said:


> Judges do not have a simple job, and they must decide what they feel is the best course of action.


*To  I amso IR: I do not doubt that judges place themselves above the law whenever it suits them. However, your interpretation of a judge’s authority flies in the face of A Nation of Laws, Not A nation of Men. 

Frankly, I maintain that America is neither a nation of laws, nor a nation of men, but is actually a nation of lawyers.*

Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges, without benefit of legislation they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.​
Jurors & Government Moralists​


----------



## I amso IR

Perhaps so, but that is the least of my concerns. What I am qualified to say, is, they have you coming and going For every measure in your favor there is at least one not in your favor. Should that be the flavor of the day, too bad. But then again .....
Good speaking with you. I amso IR


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> Put the issue in perspective with one question: Did Nazis judges have the Right to order Picasso to paint their morality rather than paint his own in Guernica?


*A dress designer obviously has more Rights than bakers, florists, and photographers: *




https://39uhx2trii4zt1im-zippykid.n...uploads/2016/11/2016.11.24-Wedding-Cake-2.jpg


----------



## anotherlife

The Tea Party is one of the most interesting parts of US politics, because it showcases well, how the controllers of a two party system can effectively disarm even the most popular political alternative.  Also, the Tea Part shows, how effective a government policy is when it builds on dividing people by selectively threatening them then incrementally removing them.


----------



## Flanders

Flanders said:


> Lawyers should fight those cases on involuntary servitude because they will never win based religious freedom:


*Now it is jail time for refusing to do as the government tells you to do:*

According to Charisma News, the business owners face a fine of up to $2,500, in addition to six months imprisonment for holding to their Christian beliefs.​
Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations
           Chris Enloe December 4, 2016 5:57 pm

Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flanders said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lawyers should fight those cases on involuntary servitude because they will never win based religious freedom:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now it is jail time for refusing to do as the government tells you to do:*
> 
> According to Charisma News, the business owners face a fine of up to $2,500, in addition to six months imprisonment for holding to their Christian beliefs.​
> Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations
> Chris Enloe December 4, 2016 5:57 pm
> 
> Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations​
Click to expand...

Don't live in France.

I have always thought it a dirty, privileged place of nothing.


----------

