Gorsuch

[g5000]

The rights of Americans are now expanded. Why are you threatened by this

I feel much freer now.

Yes, you are fine with oppression when it does not impact you.

 

[g5000]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

The big criticism of Roberts is his holding that the Obamacare penalty was a Tax.

That was the correct holding. It was a tax. Even though the Democrats sold it SPECIFICALLY as NOT a tax.

But, as a tax, it can be easily REMOVED....which it was.

There is not much a SC Justice can do with a shitty law that is otherwise constitutional BUT make sure everybody knows just how shitty that law really is, and make it much easier for legislatures to GET RID OF said shitty law (see Gorsuch here).

Yeah, the penalty was unconstitutional but it's not a SC justice job to rewrite a law and that's exactly what he did. He was supposed to send it back to the house which had turned and the whole farce of a law would have ended.

Had it NOT been deemed a tax, we would still be stuck with that stupid penalty.

You are not seeing the big picture. The "tax" designation made it a budget issue.

Somebody please explain. I can't right now.

.

No need to explain. I completely get it. We wouldn't be stuck with the penalty because the law could have been struck down due to the penalty. Roberts wanted it to be a law so he rewrote it instead of doing his job and sending it back to the house.

How would it be struck down?

It was nothing more than a tax, with a tax incentive for buying health insurance. That's it.

But, as such, it's not tied to any entitlement, which THEN makes the rest of the law (Obamacare) unconstitutional.


I will say this, because I don't have much time --- See Ken Paxton.

.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Liberals who freaked out about Gorsuch being a NAZI were pretty fucking stupid.

Who said this?

Have you one national Democrat that called him a NAZI?

They might have disagreed with him but that type of language is for people on the Right...

There were plenty of people with a national platform calling Gorsuch a Nazi.

Odd that you only ask about National Democrats, are you strictly referring to Democratic elected officials in Congress?

This is pretty interesting:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-02-02/neil-gorsuch-founded-fascism-forever-club-report-says

 

[esalla]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

He defended the rights of americans. Why is that bad for you

Your answer is in the OP. Try reading. Thanks.

The rights of Americans are now expanded. Why are you threatened by this

Expanded? By taking away private property rights? Do you even know what rights are?
Holy shit

Giving gays and lesbians equal rights does not effect my property or yours

Next

 

[Care4all]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century ago meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

Sex is not sexuality, nor is it what gender you think you are. If Congress wanted to add those, like some States did, I would be fine with it.

If the female sex can marry a man, the male sex can marry a man.......

Where is sexuality in that???

it's an end run, jiggery pokery.

Same as Obergfell.

Never saw Gorsuch as that type....

 

[g5000]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

The big criticism of Roberts is his holding that the Obamacare penalty was a Tax.

That was the correct holding. It was a tax. Even though the Democrats sold it SPECIFICALLY as NOT a tax.

But, as a tax, it can be easily REMOVED....which it was.

There is not much a SC Justice can do with a shitty law that is otherwise constitutional BUT make sure everybody knows just how shitty that law really is, and make it much easier for legislatures to GET RID OF said shitty law (see Gorsuch here).

Yeah, the penalty was unconstitutional but it's not a SC justice job to rewrite a law and that's exactly what he did. He was supposed to send it back to the house which had turned and the whole farce of a law would have ended.

Had it NOT been deemed a tax, we would still be stuck with that stupid penalty.

You are not seeing the big picture. The "tax" designation made it a budget issue.

Somebody please explain. I can't right now.

.

It's very simple.

If you don't have a mortgage, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't breed children, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right energy-saving refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes.


So it was no leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right health insurance.

So-called "conservatives" demanded this structure. But just watch them scream like welfare queens if you threaten their mortgage interest deduction or child tax credits.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them, rather than the business enjoying the right to pick and choose their own employees and customers. That's what is bizarre.

I no more believe a black transgender should have to serve a white Christian than I believe a white Christian should have to serve a black transgender.

See how that works?

 

[g5000]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them, rather than the business enjoying the right to pick and choose their own employees and customers. That's what is bizarre.

I no more believe a black transgender should have to serve a white Christian than I believe a white Christian should have to serve a black transgender.

See how that works?

The ruling was about not being able to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Just like you can't fire someone for being female or white or black.

See how that works?

Same rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

The unofficial way of picking judges is to rely on the American Bar Association. The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States. So, you're going to be hard pressed to get any judge that thinks his profession is subservient to the will of the people.

Gorsuch is still a Catholic despite joining other churches. He would never vote against his conscience. And, legislating from the bench on laws that aren't constitutional to begin with is no problem for any judge.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

...but you should be use to being wrong tho.....

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them, rather than the business enjoying the right to pick and choose their own employees and customers. That's what is bizarre.

I no more believe a black transgender should have to serve a white Christian than I believe a white Christian should have to serve a black transgender.

See how that works?

The ruling was about not being able to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Just like you can't fire someone for being female or white or black.

See how that works?

Same rights.

Nobody has a de jure / legal / constitutional / moral "right" to impose themselves upon another in the private sector IF the Constitution were being adhered to.

 

[g5000]

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them

We know your kind.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them, rather than the business enjoying the right to pick and choose their own employees and customers. That's what is bizarre.

I no more believe a black transgender should have to serve a white Christian than I believe a white Christian should have to serve a black transgender.

See how that works?

The ruling was about not being able to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Just like you can't fire someone for being female or white or black.

See how that works?

Same rights.

Yes. That is the intent on its face. And, we should give everyone equal rights.

But, look what transgender has done to female sports.

This decision is a BIG TIME poison pill for the entire law.

.

 

[g5000]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them, rather than the business enjoying the right to pick and choose their own employees and customers. That's what is bizarre.

I no more believe a black transgender should have to serve a white Christian than I believe a white Christian should have to serve a black transgender.

See how that works?

The ruling was about not being able to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Just like you can't fire someone for being female or white or black.

See how that works?

Same rights.

Nobody has a de jure / legal / constitutional / moral "right" to impose themselves upon another in the private sector IF the Constitution were being adhered to.

How is a gay person imposing themselves on anyone, retard?

Are you afraid you will want to start sucking dick if you are around one?

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

It is bizarre how upset some fucktards get when someone is given the same rights and privileges they enjoy.

No, what's bizarre is that some fucktards believe that ANYONE should have a right to force a business to employee them/serve them, rather than the business enjoying the right to pick and choose their own employees and customers. That's what is bizarre.

I no more believe a black transgender should have to serve a white Christian than I believe a white Christian should have to serve a black transgender.

See how that works?

The ruling was about not being able to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Just like you can't fire someone for being female or white or black.

See how that works?

Same rights.

True, but I should be able to fire anyone for ANY reason. The right should be MINE, it's MY business.

This isn't rocket science.

By the way, can I fire someone for having brown hair................

 

[easyt65]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench. What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

1. Where's your Link?

2. Prove he 'legislated from the Bench....with more than your own opinion, please.

Thank you.


.

 

[easyt65]

True, but I should be able to fire anyone for ANY reason. The right should be MINE, it's MY business.

Haven't you heard?

'You didn't build that!'

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

He defended the rights of americans. Why is that bad for you

Your answer is in the OP. Try reading. Thanks.

The rights of Americans are now expanded. Why are you threatened by this

Expanded? By taking away private property rights? Do you even know what rights are?
Holy shit

Giving gays and lesbians equal rights does not effect my property or yours

Next

Yes it does affect our property. If I don't want someone on my property, then I don't want them there. The Right to own private property was one of the great hallmarks of our Constitution.

 

[Billiejeens]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

He defended the rights of americans. Why is that bad for you

Your answer is in the OP. Try reading. Thanks.

The rights of Americans are now expanded. Why are you threatened by this

You are, or you are not, aware that is not supposed to be the SCOTUS role?