9-0 SCOTUS Tells Lower Court Pound Sand and Protect Little Sisters

I suspect that the case had a 4 to 4 split.

They don't want any thing of it right now.

Which is pathetic in it's own right. Liberal vs Conservative shouldn't have a fucking thing to do with how the Court rules. Either something is Constitutional or it isn't, and unfortunately I have heard comments from several Justices lately that prove that they are politically motivated.

If everyone knew what was Constitutional and what wasn't- we wouldn't have a need for 9 Justices.

We have 9 Justices because some issues are complex and even highly informed legal scholars can disagree.

That said- the OP is misleading- whether intentionally or whether he just assumes a partisan website wouldn't lie to him, I don't know.
 
[
With gay marriage, I suspect even Alito knew prohibitions made no sense under equal protection. But the Court can move too fast, and imo it did. It should have allowed public opinion to change even more. As was the case in Loving. And, even in Griswold..

The Court in Obergefell was actually following public opinion.

The Court in Loving preceded public opinion by about 20 years- it was about 20 years after Loving that the majority of Americans finally were in favor of mixed race marriages.
 
That is the genius of the US system.

No one is forced to get an abortion.

No one is penalized for having a drink.

No one is forced to marry someone they don't want to marry.

The right of private association is protected.
 
[
With gay marriage, I suspect even Alito knew prohibitions made no sense under equal protection. But the Court can move too fast, and imo it did. It should have allowed public opinion to change even more. As was the case in Loving. And, even in Griswold..

The Court in Obergefell was actually following public opinion.

The Court in Loving preceded public opinion by about 20 years- it was about 20 years after Loving that the majority of Americans finally were in favor of mixed race marriages.
By 1967, only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws, and all were in the old South.

The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.
 
The Court in Obergefell was actually following public opinion.

The Court in Loving preceded public opinion by about 20 years- it was about 20 years after Loving that the majority of Americans finally were in favor of mixed race marriages.
By 1967, only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws, and all were in the old South.

The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.


iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg.gif



He said "pubic opinion" not marriage laws.

In 1967, polls show that 80% of people were against interracial marriage.



>>>>
 
The Court in Obergefell was actually following public opinion.

The Court in Loving preceded public opinion by about 20 years- it was about 20 years after Loving that the majority of Americans finally were in favor of mixed race marriages.
By 1967, only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws, and all were in the old South.

The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.


iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg.gif



He said "pubic opinion" not marriage laws.

In 1967, polls show that 80% of people were against interracial marriage.



>>>>
Interesting. I may be wrong. But why would something like 25 states do away with anti-miscegenation laws if support was high? I'm not disputing your link. I think I was in error as to polling. It must have been some states became enlightened before others. And, I'm sure I live where a lot of those 14%ers live now. LOL
 
The Court in Obergefell was actually following public opinion.

The Court in Loving preceded public opinion by about 20 years- it was about 20 years after Loving that the majority of Americans finally were in favor of mixed race marriages.
By 1967, only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws, and all were in the old South.

The battle over inter-racial marriage in the U.S.


iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg.gif



He said "pubic opinion" not marriage laws.

In 1967, polls show that 80% of people were against interracial marriage.



>>>>
Interesting. I may be wrong. But why would something like 25 states do away with anti-miscegenation laws if support was high? I'm not disputing your link. I think I was in error as to polling. It must have been some states became enlightened before others. And, I'm sure I live where a lot of those 14%ers live now. LOL


Because there is a difference between public opinion and the law. There were probably many that disapproved of interracial marriage (reflected in the Gallup poll), but saying should interracial marriage be illegal is a different question. You can have an opinion against interracial marriage without thinking it should be illegal.



>>>>
 

Can you please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about Birth Control?

Thanks.
He commanded everyone to procreate, thus by definition he was against abortion and birth control.

Can you please point out where Jesus said that Chapter and Verse? Thanks.

Because Christians aren't in agreement on the subject among themselves. The Catholics are against Birth control, but most protestant denominations are okay with it.

This isn't like "Thou Shall Not Kill", which there is really no disagreement upon. It isn't even like "Love your Neighbor", which a lot of Christians don't practice, but they all agree is part of the doctrine.
 

Can you please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about Birth Control?

Thanks.
He commanded everyone to procreate, thus by definition he was against abortion and birth control.

Can you please point out where Jesus said that Chapter and Verse? Thanks.

Because Christians aren't in agreement on the subject among themselves. The Catholics are against Birth control, but most protestant denominations are okay with it.

This isn't like "Thou Shall Not Kill", which there is really no disagreement upon. It isn't even like "Love your Neighbor", which a lot of Christians don't practice, but they all agree is part of the doctrine.
''Christians'' do not define Christianity... Lol
 
Wrong.

This is a lie.

There are 8 justices currently on the Court and the case was sent back to the lower courts to work out a compromise.

The propensity of most on the right to lie is truly disturbing.


no compromise

they told the lower courts to figure something this time

that does not violate their rights

seems even liberal justices dont like such abuses on civil rights
 
Wrong.

This is a lie.

There are 8 justices currently on the Court and the case was sent back to the lower courts to work out a compromise.

The propensity of most on the right to lie is truly disturbing.

As is the propensity for muddle headed partisans to pretend , among other things, that only partisan jack asses on one side lie.
 

Forum List

Back
Top