Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.
I think I'd take the ruling of 9 SCOTUS Justices over what Libertarian nut reading his Ayn Rand has to say on the subject.
No, that means nothing to you. You take the opinion that supports your position. If the Scotus were against you then you would be arguing the complete reverse.
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
What, the rulings were too hard for you to understand?
Non-sequitur
Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?
Non sequitur
How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.
No, that means nothing to you. You take the opinion that supports your position. If the Scotus were against you then you would be arguing the complete reverse.
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
I specifically said a 9-0 ruling, as in there being NO DOUBT.
Most of the SCOTUS rulings I disagree with are the ones that are 5-4, with Scalia coming up with some bizarre interpretations like, "The Founding Rapists wanted us to have machine guns, but not Nukes!"
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
Non-sequitur
Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?
Non sequitur
How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.
You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)
No, that means nothing to you. You take the opinion that supports your position. If the Scotus were against you then you would be arguing the complete reverse.
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
I specifically said a 9-0 ruling, as in there being NO DOUBT.
Most of the SCOTUS rulings I disagree with are the ones that are 5-4, with Scalia coming up with some bizarre interpretations like, "The Founding Rapists wanted us to have machine guns, but not Nukes!"
And so the standard turns, as the sun comes up...
Note you said words but you didn't contradict what I pointed out
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
Citizens United. Stuck with it until Congress does something. But...I don't just snivel about it on a message board. I support, with my wallet, citizens groups that are trying to make campaign finance reforms. I support candidates that support campaign finance reform.
What have you been doing to get rid of those pesky Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level? Have you even contacted your representative? You can try Rand Paul. He used to support getting rid of PA protections...until he was called on it and flip flopped.
Lame cop out deflection. Did you or did you not understand the SCOTUS rulings in Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's BBQ?
Non sequitur
How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.
You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)
Exactly, I asked where the SCOTUS has the authority based on the measuring stick, the Constitution. You have no answer, so you keep asking if I understand their ruling. That isn't the question.
You don't know, you aren't even trying to answer the question, you just keep setting at the edge of a rat hole running down it trying to get me to follow you. When I don't, you come back out and run down again hoping I'll follow you this time. I don't, so you're back again...
No, that means nothing to you. You take the opinion that supports your position. If the Scotus were against you then you would be arguing the complete reverse.
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
I specifically said a 9-0 ruling, as in there being NO DOUBT.
Most of the SCOTUS rulings I disagree with are the ones that are 5-4, with Scalia coming up with some bizarre interpretations like, "The Founding Rapists wanted us to have machine guns, but not Nukes!"
And so the standard turns, as the sun comes up...
Note you said words but you didn't contradict what I pointed out
Yes, I did. But your lack of reading comprehension skills came into play.
5-4 - No real agreement.
9-0 absolute agreement.
I can think of one 9-0 ruling that turned out to be a bad idea. It's when 9 justices ruled that Paula Jones could sue Bill Clinton. It's a terrible precendent. But legally, they were spot on.
Non sequitur
How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.
You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)
Exactly, I asked where the SCOTUS has the authority based on the measuring stick, the Constitution. You have no answer, so you keep asking if I understand their ruling. That isn't the question.
You don't know, you aren't even trying to answer the question, you just keep setting at the edge of a rat hole running down it trying to get me to follow you. When I don't, you come back out and run down again hoping I'll follow you this time. I don't, so you're back again...
I don't know how to make it any simpler...commerce clause c-o-m-m-e-r-c-e c-l-a-u-s-e
Okay...spelled it out. If you still don't understand, nobody can help you.
Not that it is even relevant since none of the laws protecting gays are at a Federal level. States rights.
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
Citizens United. Stuck with it until Congress does something. But...I don't just snivel about it on a message board. I support, with my wallet, citizens groups that are trying to make campaign finance reforms. I support candidates that support campaign finance reform.
You just said you still oppose the ruling. The point made was he thinks what he does because the SCOTUS says so. You just gave an example of a ruling that supports my position. You don't accept it, you want to overturn and circumvent it.
Give an example of a SCOTUS ruling you disagreed with that you accepted because the SCOTUS said so.
Citizens United. Stuck with it until Congress does something. But...I don't just snivel about it on a message board. I support, with my wallet, citizens groups that are trying to make campaign finance reforms. I support candidates that support campaign finance reform.
You just said you still oppose the ruling. The point made was he thinks what he does because the SCOTUS says so. You just gave an example of a ruling that supports my position. You don't accept it, you want to overturn and circumvent it.
Yes, and? How many times do you need to be wished luck in your endeavor? Challenge them, go ahead...but you don't. You just whine and snivel here about how unfair the world is that you don't get to discriminate against gays in a few places.
You gave a ruling that you agreed with, not one you didn't. All you just said is that even though they were right you think it was a bad idea to uphold the law. That isn't you following your standard that you believe it because the SCOTUS said so.
Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.
Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on
I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.
Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.
Nobody gets a parking ticket for being a hater.
again, the idea here is deterence. It's not just to put Melissa's Cakes out of business, which is a good thing, but to let all the other Christian Assholes know that they can't do this, not even once.
Again, I've known gays who've been fired from their jobs for being gay, I've known gays who've been beaten up.
Having to bake a cake you'll receive money for baking after you promised to bake cakes for money - this is not an infringement.
God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.
How is it a non sequitur to ask you if you understand the rulings you are inquiring about.? You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority to rule PA laws Constitutional. I provided it. Do you or do you not understand the ruling. They ruled 9-0 by the way.
It's a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I argued. It's a rat hole you want me to follow you down. Pass.
You asked where the SCOTUS found the authority...its in their 9-0 ruling. (SPOILER ALERT: Commerce Clause)
Exactly, I asked where the SCOTUS has the authority based on the measuring stick, the Constitution. You have no answer, so you keep asking if I understand their ruling. That isn't the question.
You don't know, you aren't even trying to answer the question, you just keep setting at the edge of a rat hole running down it trying to get me to follow you. When I don't, you come back out and run down again hoping I'll follow you this time. I don't, so you're back again...
I don't know how to make it any simpler...commerce clause c-o-m-m-e-r-c-e c-l-a-u-s-e
Okay...spelled it out. If you still don't understand, nobody can help you.
Not that it is even relevant since none of the laws protecting gays are at a Federal level. States rights.
The commerce clause is trade between the states. What does buying a cake from your local baker have to do with trade between the States?
You gave a ruling that you agreed with, not one you didn't. All you just said is that even though they were right you think it was a bad idea to uphold the law. That isn't you following your standard that you believe it because the SCOTUS said so.
I think it was a bad ruling because it leads to all sorts of mischief. But LEGALLY, they were on solid ground. Both conservative and liberal justices agreed on it.
If 9 SCOTUS justices agree, "Yes, the Constitution is pretty darned clear on that point", then the constitution is pretty clear on that point.
if 5 come to one conclusion and 4 come to a different one, not so much.
God the tears again. Seriously, this is just an Internet discussion. You seriously need to stay out of political forums if you are going to keep losing it like that. Take deeps breaths and try to calm down. Not everyone is going to agree with you, that's how the world works.
Only guy I see crying here is you because the courts are making homophobes bake cakes.
You must also know people that have gotten the death sentence for parking tickets?
A small business feels real pain with a fine that escalates if they violate again. 10 cakes at a retail cost could be 2500 to 7500. It hurts the owners but probably not enough to cost innocent employees jobs or pay (I know you could give a shit about them)
Also, you speak of haters. Seriously, your rant was nothing but hate.
Ironic
