Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[OKTexas]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.

 

[Skylar]

So was interracial sex. Yet the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans all the same. Yet oddly in your incest and polygamy gibberish.....nothing.

If incest marriage and polygamy are the 'implication' of the recognition of same sex marriage....why has the former never followed the latter in any state, no matter how long they've recognized same sex marriage.

Clearly, you're missing something. As once again.....nothing you insist 'must' happen ever has.

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

......you start babbling about lottery numbers.

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

 

[Skylar]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

I guess natural physical incomparability isn't compelling. LMAO If everyone thought that way humanity would disappear.

You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.

 

[bodecea]

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

It is not a disability. It is also not a basis to deny that person the same rights you have.

They had the same rights I had, when are you going to get that through your head?

SInce Obergefell, yes.

You didn't have the right to marry before Obergfell?

Odd

Actually we did in California...but now we don't have to worry about going to visit relatives in Texas or Virginia or North Carolina anymore.

 

[Pop23]

Maryland and Iowa says your wrong.

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

......you start babbling about lottery numbers.

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

I've said same sex sibling marriage would be legal, and it appears that in at least two states it already is.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Got it now Sally?

 

[Pop23]

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

It is not a disability. It is also not a basis to deny that person the same rights you have.

They had the same rights I had, when are you going to get that through your head?

SInce Obergefell, yes.

You didn't have the right to marry before Obergfell?

Odd

Actually we did in California...but now we don't have to worry about going to visit relatives in Texas or Virginia or North Carolina anymore.

Actually you always could. Whether you chose to or not was your decision.

 

[Skylar]

No, you pretending to be Maryland and Iowa say I'm wrong. But when I ask you to show us evidence of ONE incest marriage or plural marriage in either state recognized under the laws you cited....

......you start babbling about lottery numbers.

Once again, Pop offers pseudo-legal gibberish as the basis of another 'prediction'. And once again, nothing Pop predicts actually happens.

The perfect failure continues.

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

 

[OKTexas]

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.

Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state.

Or the very real establishment clause. You know, whichever.

Well I guess the supreme court is guilty of establishing a religion also, the ten commandments are inscribed on the stone walls of the court.

 

[bodecea]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

It is true, you fucking moron. The Supreme Court cases they decided had no affect at all on states that adopted same sex marriage. If that is not true, explain how is it not or shut the fuck up.

I love it when you regressivecrats lose it. GOOOOOOOOD JOB!

Actually....we won it.

 

[OKTexas]

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.

Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state. But you think a judge with the full knowledge they will be considering a case on SSM couldn't possibly be endorsing SSM by officiating such a marriage before the case ever reaches the court. Could your bias be getting in the way of your common sense?

The Establishment Clause isn't mythical, it is very real; however, the examples you gave earlier do not arise to an establishment of a religion in my opinion. I have explained twice why a bias cannot exist as both weddings occurred in locations that were not going to be unaffected by the ruling either way. Why do think nobody with any real power are pursing this bias angle in court? Could it be b/c they cannot prove there is a bias? It is nothing more than wishful thinking from people that were never going to accept gay marriages to begin with.

Exactly what religion is established by having the ten commandments or a bible sitting somewhere?

 

[Skylar]

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.

Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state.

Or the very real establishment clause. You know, whichever.

Well I guess the supreme court is guilty of establishing a religion also, the ten commandments are inscribed on the stone walls of the court.

So I'm guessing you're not claiming the establishment clause is mythical?

 

[OKTexas]

Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).

What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.

I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

 

[bodecea]

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.

Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state.

Or the very real establishment clause. You know, whichever.

Well I guess the supreme court is guilty of establishing a religion also, the ten commandments are inscribed on the stone walls of the court.

They are? Got a pic of them? Which version did they use?

 

[Skylar]

I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

We're talking siblings, parents, etc.

 

[Pop23]

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

 

[Pop23]

I can't show you an incest marriage cuz brothers have no vagina, and Maryland cited incest as vaginal penetration. Get it, no vagina no incest.

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Argue with yourself about anything you wish others have posted.

Again, your sick need to talk about sibling sex is your own. Maybe you can get Syriously to talk about your sick fantasies, I won't enable your fetish.

 

[Pop23]

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

We're talking siblings, parents, etc.

You are.

Incest is illegal. Marriage REQUIRES NO SEX.

You sick twisted twit.

 

[Skylar]

So you're completely unable to show us any evidence of any incest marriage in either State recognized under the laws you cited, despite your claim that both Maryland and Iowa permit it.

Shocker. Another pseudo-legal prediction from our Perfect Failure comes up as a perfect failure.

How did I know that was coming? Perhaps because *every* legal prediction you've made has turned out to be meaningless, incompetent garbage?

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

Or any time you discuss the topic. As its the only topic you'll discuss in any thread. You're obsessed with it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

And yet instead of answering any of my questions, you keep babbling about incest. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument and the truth of mine: you're obsessed with the topic. Watch. You'll do it again:

"Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more."

You'll ignore the question and continue with your obsession with incest. You can't help it.

Which might be why you're so awful at predicting any legal outcome.

 

[OKTexas]

We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.

And contradicted perfectly by history.

And (cuz you're a nazi), 20 years ago there was no same sex marriage.

Nor was there an Ipod Nano 20 years ago. But your assumption was that same sex marriage legalizes incest marriage and polygamy.

Neither of which is actually true. Nor has history backed, with nothing you've insisted must happen....ever actually happening.

And its this profound difference between what you assume and what reality actually indicates where your argument collapse into sad little pieces. As it demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Never is a long time dummy.

From then, when same sex marriage was first legalized to now...its never happened. Nothing you've insisted must happen....has.

Your record of failure is perfect. Clearly there's something you missed.

And saying something will not happen is a simpletons argument unless you answer this:

What is the Compelling State Interest in denying an individual the right to marry whomever he/she chooses.

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

 

[Skylar]

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

We're talking siblings, parents, etc.

You are.

Incest is illegal. Marriage REQUIRES NO SEX.

You sick twisted twit.

Interracial sex was also illegal. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans all the same.

Yet they've never recognized the legality of incest, incest marriage or polygamy. Despite all your inept 'implication' babble. You keep using the wrong word, equating 'implication' with any hapless batshit you want to make up.

They aren't the same thing. As the perfect record of failure of your every legal prediction demonstrates.

Nothing you've predicted must happen....ever has.