The Phoenix Just Burned Again: Cheif Justice Moore Of Alabama: Should We Go-Fund Him?

[Silhouette]

The majority doesn't rule here, kids. We are not a democracy.

It does when it comes to behaviors. Check your local penal codes for details. Maybe a minority of cleptomaniacs should meet to form "Thieving Americans" and demand the local ordinances prohibiting their "ownership orientation" be repealed? Or Drug Addict Americans could form an alliance to let "Substance orientation" flourish as it will? Or bulimics, because their eating-orientation demands they not be forced into the closet to have to puke in a bathroom stall...vomit urns must be provided by every restaurant to not represent bigotry against this minority's behaviors.

Democracy does rule behaviors. If you want your special narrowly defined and poorly-understood (why do lesbians use dildos and gay men "bottom" femmes' anus as artificial vagina?) deviant sex cult included in special protections in the Constitution, start calling your representatives and letting them know that's what you want.

 

[Frank'sRules]

The majority doesn't rule here, kids. We are not a democracy.

It does when it comes to behaviors. Check your local penal codes for details. Maybe a minority of cleptomaniacs should meet to form "Thieving Americans" and demand the local ordinances prohibiting their "ownership orientation" be repealed? Or Drug Addict Americans could form an alliance to let "Substance orientation" flourish as it will? Or bulimics, because their eating-orientation demands the not be forced into the closet to have to puke in a bathroom stall...vomit urns must be provided by every restaurant to not represent bigotry against this minority's behaviors.

The majority doesn't rule here. The end.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

 

[mdk]

How much has Moore's Go Fund Me page raked in thus far, Sil? Have you been too busy talking about dildos and fake pussies to start one? lol

 

[Silhouette]

Hi troll! ^^

 

[mdk]

Good morning, Sil. I hope you're still not smarting over Moore getting canned? Too bad he didn't use any of your legal babble during his ethics hearing. I am sure he would still have his job today if he mentioned children being parties to their parent's marriage and the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The majority doesn't rule here, kids. We are not a democracy.

It does when it comes to behaviors. Check your local penal codes for details. Maybe a minority of cleptomaniacs should meet to form "Thieving Americans" and demand the local ordinances prohibiting their "ownership orientation" be repealed? Or Drug Addict Americans could form an alliance to let "Substance orientation" flourish as it will? Or bulimics, because their eating-orientation demands they not be forced into the closet to have to puke in a bathroom stall...vomit urns must be provided by every restaurant to not represent bigotry against this minority's behaviors.

Democracy does rule behaviors. If you want your special narrowly defined and poorly-understood (why do lesbians use dildos and gay men "bottom" femmes' anus as artificial vagina?) deviant sex cult included in special protections in the Constitution, start calling your representatives and letting them know that's what you want.

Democracy does not rule behaviors.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

That's a judge's ruling, not a majority vote.

You tried to ban gay marriage by popular vote and it turned out, it was tossed by the courts for being unconstitutional. Now, who rules here again?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

That's a judge's ruling, not a majority vote.

You tried to ban gay marriage by popular vote and it turned out, it was tossed by the courts for being unconstitutional. Now, who rules here again?

The Constitution of course. Obergefell was a judge's ruling, not a majority vote. You tried to use the premise "sexual behaviors = race" by judicial fiat and it turned out, it was tossed by the 7th circuit this year for being unconstitutional. They found that sexual orientation is NOT covered as a federal civil right. (of course non-enumerated behaviors cannot have civil rights. Behaviors aren't people! And there's so darned many of them, where to draw the line?) Now, who rules here again?

Welcome to the beginning...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No Matter What Its Public Pose Is, the 1% Controls All Anti-Majority Armies

In a free country, the tyranny of special interest cliques does not override the will of the majority. Nor does any know-it-all coven of self-appointed experts on society have the right to tell us what does or does not threaten us.

Especially when one of them is a Justice of the US Supreme Court...who went on a taped interview months before Obergefell...as it was pending in her Court..saying "I think gay marriage is a thing America is ready for"...when the question in her court was "is gay marriage a thing that must be forced on all 50 states against their Will?" That right there is tyranny-defined. She should not be occupying a bench AT ALL..anywhere in the country...much less the USSC.

I like your choice of the word "coven" BTW. Fitting.

SCROTUS: Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

Roberts and Alioto came under the spell of the coven and approved Gay Marriage and Obamacare.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No Matter What Its Public Pose Is, the 1% Controls All Anti-Majority Armies

In a free country, the tyranny of special interest cliques does not override the will of the majority. Nor does any know-it-all coven of self-appointed experts on society have the right to tell us what does or does not threaten us.

Especially when one of them is a Justice of the US Supreme Court...who went on a taped interview months before Obergefell...as it was pending in her Court..saying "I think gay marriage is a thing America is ready for"...when the question in her court was "is gay marriage a thing that must be forced on all 50 states against their Will?" That right there is tyranny-defined. She should not be occupying a bench AT ALL..anywhere in the country...much less the USSC.

I like your choice of the word "coven" BTW. Fitting.

The majority doesn't rule here, kids. We are not a democracy.

Off the People, Buy the People, and Force the People

If you say so. But we don't have to believe a parrot of plutocratic parasites.

 

[Frank'sRules]

No Matter What Its Public Pose Is, the 1% Controls All Anti-Majority Armies

In a free country, the tyranny of special interest cliques does not override the will of the majority. Nor does any know-it-all coven of self-appointed experts on society have the right to tell us what does or does not threaten us.

Especially when one of them is a Justice of the US Supreme Court...who went on a taped interview months before Obergefell...as it was pending in her Court..saying "I think gay marriage is a thing America is ready for"...when the question in her court was "is gay marriage a thing that must be forced on all 50 states against their Will?" That right there is tyranny-defined. She should not be occupying a bench AT ALL..anywhere in the country...much less the USSC.

I like your choice of the word "coven" BTW. Fitting.

The majority doesn't rule here, kids. We are not a democracy.

Off the People, Buy the People, and Force the People

If you say so. But we don't have to believe a parrot of plutocratic parasites.

Just obey the law, and think as you please.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

That's a judge's ruling, not a majority vote.

You tried to ban gay marriage by popular vote and it turned out, it was tossed by the courts for being unconstitutional. Now, who rules here again?

The Constitution of course. Obergefell was a judge's ruling, not a majority vote. You tried to use the premise "sexual behaviors = race" by judicial fiat and it turned out, it was tossed by the 7th circuit this year for being unconstitutional. They found that sexual orientation is NOT covered as a federal civil right. (of course non-enumerated behaviors cannot have civil rights. Behaviors aren't people! And there's so darned many of them, where to draw the line?) Now, who rules here again?

Welcome to the beginning...

We are not a democracy. You don't get to vote on the rights of others here.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

That's a judge's ruling, not a majority vote.

You tried to ban gay marriage by popular vote and it turned out, it was tossed by the courts for being unconstitutional. Now, who rules here again?

Vicarious Tough Guys

Whomever traitors to their class like to see pushing us around.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

That's a judge's ruling, not a majority vote.

You tried to ban gay marriage by popular vote and it turned out, it was tossed by the courts for being unconstitutional. Now, who rules here again?

Vicarious Tough Guys

Whomever traitors to their class like to see pushing us around.

You could always move to a true democracy except, there aren't any.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes it does...the beginning. Hively v Ivy Tech...7th circuit...2016...the beginning..

That's a judge's ruling, not a majority vote.

You tried to ban gay marriage by popular vote and it turned out, it was tossed by the courts for being unconstitutional. Now, who rules here again?

The Constitution of course. Obergefell was a judge's ruling, not a majority vote....

Obergefell was a majority vote of the justices- that is how courts work.

You get loonier every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Moore should go fund himself.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell was a majority vote of the justices- that is how courts work.

You get loonier every day.

Hively v Ivy Tech was arrived at the same way. You OK with that? Or will you challenge "the tyranny of just three judges!"?

In other words, if the way Obergefell "became new law" is OK with you, then the way the 7th arrived at their Ruling for Hively v Ivy Tech this year is also "the new law". Right?

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell was a majority vote of the justices- that is how courts work.

You get loonier every day.

Hively v Ivy Tech was arrived at the same way.

I believe Americans have the right to go to court to protect their constitutional rights.

Why would I object to Hively v. Ivy Tech?

 

[Syriusly]

In other words, if the way Obergefell "became new law" is OK with you, then the way the 7th arrived at their Ruling for Hively v Ivy Tech this year is also "the new law". Right?

You are a complete loon.

Neither Obergefell or Loving 'became new law'- courts don't make law- they interpret the Constitution.