A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned

[Seawytch]

...Nope, it's a religious extremist thing...

Nahhhhh...

In the Real World, that's purely a Muslim thing...

Get's you hard though doesn't it.

There are Christians here in the US that would do the same thing if they could...The very Reverend Kevin Swanson for one.

Neither Muslims or Christians do that here, both Muslims and Christians do it elsewhere. Hmmmm...so it's not the religion, what could it be?

 

[jillian]

Exhibit A:

This is a picture of the Whitehouse just a few hours after the Obergefell 2015 Decision was announced in June 2015. The problem with this is, things take time at the Whitehouse to get approved, set up and changed. Days at least for a complete light show on the Whitehouse.

Yet we have the supposed first sign of the Obergefell Decision with reporters sprinting out to their cameras from the Courthouse the day the Decision was handed down.

So...for those a little confused here, at the very least, the Whitehouse seemed to have direct knowledge to set up a rainbow light show displayed just a few hours after the Obergefell Decision was announced. Which is problematic in itself.

But... The fact that the Whitehouse, the Executive Branch of government, sought to flaunt a minority victory of a new description of marriage (of which kids were not allowed to the contract revision hearing, in violation of law: Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling? | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ) was a form of authoritarian tyranny. Many many millions of people voted in their states to keep a mother and father for children in marriage (man/woman marriage). But those child custodians were not honored as to this brand new challenge to the millennial-old marriage contract. This rainbow display on the Whitehouse was the act of a fascist dictator....who from all appearances seemed to have known the outcome of Obergefell days before anyone else did..

Two Supreme Court Justices presided over gay weddings as the question of law "should the fed preside over the states on the question of gay marriage" was pending before the High Court. According to their own Law they made in 2009 (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal), they could not sit on the Obergefell Hearing. Yet they did.

Now, we have president Obama throwing off any remaining shreds of the veil he once wore and is not simply acting as King Obama; issuing royal mandates from his rainbow-throne at the Oval Office.

So, we have evidence that the US Supreme Court communicated with the Executive Branch before anyone else on how the gay marriage decision was going to come down.....as if there was any question of that after Justices Ginsburg and Kagan violated Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal.... We have the Executive Branch flaunting one side of a Supreme Court decision. Let me illustrate an equivalent here. It would be like if there was a victory for Exxon Oil in a sensitive environment in a coast region, of which the clear majority of voters in that region flatly rejected, where the Supreme Court told voters to go pound sand. Then, within not even one day after that Decision, the Whitehouse under, say, Bush, displayed an Exxon logo lighting effect on its exterior front that night.

You would question that. Yes, you would.

And now we have the President turning into a King. America, you have a very very serious problem with the separation of powers becoming bedfellows. When that happens, everything that every soldier who ever fought for our country's independence as as self-ruled nation, is wasted, lost. All that bloodshed becomes just biding time for tyranny to take over to make this the ephemeral utopia for (fill in the blank) tyrant of the day's fashion and design.

Watch out. The Judicial and the Executive aren't even trying to hide their cozy relationship anymore. It was why our founding fathers agonized over how Justices should be selected. The Legislature, should there be an upcoming vacancy on the Court, must triple-down on their scrutiny of any prospective appointee to the Court to fill whoever's shoes. If we keep on picking politicized pocket-Justices, we are heading for very very big trouble. It may seem really cool and tempting to pick a judge who leans your way politically in preference to being unbiased and objective; but this is perhaps one of the most dangerous mistakes to our American way of life.

Instead of being humbled by the positions of power they hold, our current Tryst of Traitors are seeming to not only quite enjoy their Unlimited Power, but also are flaunting that enjoyment to a bruised and battered Citizenry, complete with their buddy at the Whitehouse...excuse me...the Rainbowhouse... When someone with unlimited power tells you "I'm flaunting my feeling of power over you"..you'd better run for the hills. Next, they will take away your second amendment. It is a logical progression after all...

Exhibit B: Citizen's United.
In Citizen's United we have a loophole created where not only can foreigners act as citizens without going through naturalization, swearing our Oath and renouncing their former allegiance to another country, they also get to act as Supercitizens, using their massive money to directly influence our most sacred democratic rule, the power of the vote in elections. I'll just say this to illustrate my point of the DANGER of this Decision: Our worst enemies are some of the richest nations on earth and some of them own controlling interest in massive American enterprises. 1+1=2 Do the math...

The buffoons we have sitting on the Court today are largely ruled by sentimentalism, trends...and...*ahem*... economics. They arent' even aware of how contract laws work; or our tomes of laws to protect minors interests first over adults. They can't grasp the BASIC CONCEPT of not allowing foreign influences to affect our elections...even from our sworn enemies! If the Court's conservative side had five members as flagrantly biased and unqualified for the job as its liberal members, you'd have Citizen's United type laws handed down every other day. The next Justice picked must have a brain AND a soul. Let's make sure that happens.

Two Decisions that must be overturned in the near future with a new Court:

1. Obergefell 2015, for flagrant bias (Caperton 2009), and refusing to honor infants in contract law revision.

2. Citizens United, for creating a backdoor for foreigners to not have to naturalize, renounce their allegiance to a foreign nation (even our enemies) while wielding the most supreme influence over our most sublime form of democracy: elections and the vote.

Thems two gots ta go..

Citizens United was the worst case issued by the Court since Dred Scott. It's perverted our entire political system. So I agree with you on that one.

Obergefell isn't going anywhere.... nor should it. Based on the holding of Loving v Virginia, which specifically held that marriage is a fundamental right which can only be denied someone when there is a substantial governmental interest, Obergefell was the right decision.

Your taking offense at it is irrelevant. Just like people's offense at Brown v Board of Ed are irrelevant.

 

[Kondor3]

...Get's you hard though doesn't it...

Nope. Neither do carpet munchers and knob-gobblers. But that's irrelevant to the evidence of Muslim executions of homosexuals.

...There are Christians here in the US that would do the same thing if they could...

Then they are not true Christians, following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; hate the Sin, love the Sinner.

...The very Reverend Kevin Swanson for one...

Don't know anything about the fellow, but if he argues for death to homosexuals, then he is not following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

...Neither Muslims or Christians do that here, both Muslims and Christians do it elsewhere...

Christians presently execute homosexuals elsewhere as a state policy? In which country(ies) is this the case?

...Hmmmm...so it's not the religion, what could it be?

My answer to this is dependent upon your answer to the prior question.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I have yet to see evidence of when lights were installed and if each light installed has the ability to change color..

Changing color filters on a floodlight takes about five minutes with a pair of gloves and maybe a stepladder. Changing all of them for that picture probably took an hour, tops.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Syriusly, you took three posts to answer one poster. That has to stop. It is a form of spam and like the general MO of your ilk, you've learned a clandestine way to break the rules without it appearing as if you are culpable for any of the real harm you're doing.. Knock it off.

A bit ironic that you posted this, Silly The Human Spambot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I could show you statistics on STD's and AIDS when it comes to gay sex in the US as well.

Gay and bisexual men account for well over half the AIDS cases in the US, but are only about 5% of the population, at least, according to Obama's CDC.

These are inconvenient truths you might say that you demand to ignore or explain away.

So who cares? I thought this was a "free" country. If people choose to do themselves harm, who are we to tell them otherwise? If so, then allow people like polygamists to marry. If not, then outlaw gay sex.

Thank you for providing justification in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage since Civil Marriage is a strong means of promoting monogamous relationships.

Now that we have SSCM, then in the impact of monogamous relationships should eventually decrease (sadly it will probably take a couple of generations) the promiscuity in the homosexual male population.

Well done.


BTW - Polygamous sex (i.e. sex with multiple partners) isn't outlawed, so why should not having polygamous civil marriage result in making same-sex relations illegal.?


>>>>

You don't understand my position. The state should not be endorsing any sexual relationship of any kind. Marriage should be done on a private basis with no state involvement.

This should cause only religious folk to get married, although, secular people are free to get married by their pagan priest or priestess, but why bother?

If not, what is a compelling argument for a secular state to be involved with sexual unions?

Marriage is a contract...the state, therefore, is involved.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Surrogacy to gay homes.

Really?

Surrogacy to gay homes is 'child trafficking' but not to non-gay homes?

Why?

Because you are a flaming bigot.

No...because she is absolutely batshit insane and should probably be locked up.

 

[Jarlaxle]

so this is the argument? That the White House had a light display ready in solidarity with a decision everyone new was coming?

No, rather, that the White House engaged in a display of solidarity with sexual deviants and perverts - a.k.a. homosexuals.

You now need to have a neutral third party examine your computer for evidence of lesbian pornography.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Case in Point. If not for the Gay marriage thing in 2004, Bush would have lost, and we might have had a chance to undo a lot of the damage he did. But he demagogued that issue and got the Sky Pixie Followers to show up for him in Iowa and Florida, and he got another four years to really fuck things up. Oddly, he did nothing about gay marriage, and today it's legal.

Not in Alabama ...

No matter how many times you repeat that, Silly, it is still a LIE!

 

[Seawytch]

...Get's you hard though doesn't it...

Nope. Neither do carpet munchers and knob-gobblers. But that's irrelevant to the evidence of Muslim executions of homosexuals.

Right. You RWNJs love posting those pictures over and over and over again of the moooooslims hanging the gays or throwing them off cliffs. We know you guys aren't doing it to defend gays, but to attack Muslims. It's snuff porn for you fuckers.

Don't know anything about the fellow, but if he argues for death to homosexuals, then he is not following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Says you. He says differently. He says it's in the bible that gays should be killed. He believes it just as much as Muslim extremists believe their wrong interpretation of the Qu'ran. Same whores, different dresses.

Christians presently execute homosexuals elsewhere as a state policy? In which country(ies) is this the case?

Uganda has been trying with the help of American Evangelicals.

My answer to this is dependent upon your answer to the prior question.

Don't hurt yourself. It's cultural and societal. Did you know that in America we used to stone adulterers to death? We don't anymore. How come? The bible didn't change.

 

[Silhouette]

.... it's a religious extremist thing.

Contracts and minors re: necessities like a mother and father in marriage is not a religious extremist thing... It's a matter of established secular law. Unless now you're advocating that anyone who doesn't approve of stripping minors of their rights to contractual necessities is " a whacko idea". Next you'll be arguing that anyone who doesn't approve of lowering the age of sexual consent is "old fashioned, whacko, bigoted...etc. etc. etc."...

 

[Cecilie1200]

so this is the argument? That the White House had a light display ready in solidarity with a decision everyone new was coming?

Everyone should not know what Decision is coming from the United States Supreme Court. Yes. But it's not an "argument". I don't feel the need to argue the basic foundations of the charges and duties of the US Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch of government to maintain its one tenet of Office: THE APPEARANCE OF REMAINING IMPARTIAL UNTIL ALL DELIBERATIONS HAVE ENDED.

Might try retaking American Goverment, the Jr High level course..

I don't know that the White House had prior knowledge of the decision. They may simply have set up their display "in case" the decision went the way they wanted, and they simply would have left it off had it not.

But yes, it was tacky and discriminatory. The White House should hold itself above such divisive partisanship.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have yet to see evidence of when lights were installed and if each light installed has the ability to change color..

The spotlights on the White House are permanent fixtures, as I understand it. The colors are simply celluloid filters put over them. Still, it does have to be planned out and pre-approved. One does not simply do it on the spur-of-the-moment.

 

[Silhouette]

I have yet to see evidence of when lights were installed and if each light installed has the ability to change color..

The spotlights on the White House are permanent fixtures, as I understand it. The colors are simply celluloid filters put over them. Still, it does have to be planned out and pre-approved. One does not simply do it on the spur-of-the-moment.

Exactly. And I believe the lights were on like 8 hours or less after the Opinion of Obergefell was announced.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's this fucking easy. "Hey go put some rainbow colored filters on the big bright white lights out side."

Clearly, you don't spend a lot of time working with bureaucracy. One does not simply decide on something like this and have it up in a five-minute span.

Not to mention that someone had to BUY the color filters for the spotlights in the first place. I'm not aware of any previous need that would require the White House to have them on hand.

 

[mdk]

I love that people are still crying over the rainbow display on the White House. lol. Get over it.

 

[Syriusly]

.... it's a religious extremist thing.

Contracts and minors re: necessities like a mother and father in marriage .

There is no such 'necessities'

There is no requirement that mothers and fathers marry- or marry each other.
There is no requirement that married couples have children.
Married couples with children are allowed no fault divorce- irregardless of your 'imaginary necessities'.

You have made this all up.

 

[Syriusly]

It's this fucking easy. "Hey go put some rainbow colored filters on the big bright white lights out side."

Clearly, you don't spend a lot of time working with bureaucracy. One does not simply decide on something like this and have it up in a five-minute span.

Not to mention that someone had to BUY the color filters for the spotlights in the first place. I'm not aware of any previous need that would require the White House to have them on hand.

Well there are three possibilities

1. The White House does have different colored filters for the lights for various occasions and none of us have ever noticed because we didn't care.
2. The White House planned for the possibility of the decision being affirmative for marriage equality- not particularly hard to do- San Francisco has planned for a World Series win celebration each time the Giants are in the Series- or
3. Silhouettes favorite- because when she hears hoofbeats- she assumes they are homicidal gay unicorns- that the Ebil Gays have infiltrated the SuPreme Kourt and the fix was IN!

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know that the White House had prior knowledge of the decision. They may simply have set up their display "in case" the decision went the way they wanted, and they simply would have left it off had it not.

But yes, it was tacky and discriminatory. The White House should hold itself above such divisive partisanship.

Why should it do that? You guys on the right had no problem when George W. Stupid used gay-bashing in 2004 to win a second term. NOw when that issue is no longer going your way, you want to take the 'high road'.

Give me a fucking break.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's this fucking easy. "Hey go put some rainbow colored filters on the big bright white lights out side."

Clearly, you don't spend a lot of time working with bureaucracy. One does not simply decide on something like this and have it up in a five-minute span.

Not to mention that someone had to BUY the color filters for the spotlights in the first place. I'm not aware of any previous need that would require the White House to have them on hand.

Haven't they used red & green filters at Christmas for a while?