The Supreme Court Of The United States Is Guilty Of Subornation Of Perjury

[whitehall]

Lefties hate the Supreme Court and they found a new legal term, subordination. Put it together and they make fools out of themselves once more.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I've read the Constitution and clearly uinderstand it better than you. Liberals like you get irate if every SC decision doesn't go your way so you want to pack the court with Liberal judges. That is not America.

6 Republican SC Judges taking away people s rights is America now.

Keep crying about liberals.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Well there you go.... perfectly reasonable explanation. I don't know why he assumes that it would even get that far if it had no standing ...literally hundreds of paralegals and law clerks all missed this error? No way.

Jo

I kind of understand his reasoning. There should have been a gay couple denied services and they sued as an aggrieved party. Like the case with the baker. This isn't that kind of case.

In this case the aggrieved party is Lori Smith. The lawsuit is against the State over an unconstitutional law. There need be no one actually denied services. The statute itself is the harm.

 

[justoffal]

The 'article' presents no facts, no dates, no actual data at all. One must ask, how did liberals miss this until AFTER the ruling? Watching liberals cry is entertaining.

It has to be a crock.... Three liberal supreme Court justices with a collective staff of hundreds and a got by all of them? No way I'm going to believe that. It's more likely that the information being used to make the accusation of perjury Is itself totally and wholly fabricated.

Jo

 

[EvilCat Breath]

6 Republican SC Judges taking away people s rights is America now.

Keep crying about liberals.

No one has had their rights taken away.

 

[justoffal]

I kind of understand his reasoning. There should have been a gay couple denied services and they sued as an aggrieved party. Like the case with the baker. This isn't that kind of case.

In this case the aggrieved party is Lori Smith. The lawsuit is against the State over an unconstitutional law. There need be no one actually denied services. The statute itself is the harm.

I'm sure that issue came up multiple times....he is assuming that he's smarter than hundreds of paralegals and law clerks....the thought that it would even be heard at all it was flawed is absurd. In fact the court looks for excuses to turn away cases.

 

[justoffal]

No one has had their rights taken away.

Well....yes they have ..before they had a right to force you to violate your conscience and they loved it! Now that part of the control freak kingdom is gone.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I'm sure that issue came up multiple times....he is assuming that he's smarter than hundreds of paralegals and law clerks....the thought that it would even be heard at all of it was flawed is absurd.

I'm sure it came up like never. The harm is the statute regulating speech. The harmed party is Lori Smith.

 

[justoffal]

I'm sure it came up like never. The harm is the statute regulating speech. The harmed party is Lori Smith.

What makes me laugh if that if any of these mortally wounded whiners owned a restaurant and you walked in with a Maga hat or wearing a crucifix....they would suddenly scream that they have a right to refuse service.

 

[BluesLegend]

Packing it with activist "conservative" Justices sure isn't

So we stole an appointment from Obama and replaced Ginsburg with a conservative justice big deal.

 

[justoffal]

I'm sure it came up like never. The harm is the statute regulating speech. The harmed party is Lori Smith.

Sure....once again if the case was flawed how would it have made it past the vast army of researchers at SCOTUS....??? Doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sure....once again if the case was flawed how would it have made it past the vast army of researchers at SCOTUS....??? Doesn't pass the smell test.

Of course the case wasn't flawed. The way people who don't know any better feel about it is what's flawed.

 

[Marener]

Oh yeah. And the founding fathers were stupid racists, huh. Blah blah blah.

Non sequitor.

You’re delusional.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I'm sure it came up like never. The harm is the statute regulating speech. The harmed party is Lori Smith.

How was she harmed when it was all an hypothetical on her part. No one asked her for a design to begin with.
Hypothetical are always thrown out of court. Except in this case.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It grants equal protection to ALL CITIZENS… you fucking moron

And that includes you not being able to force me to make your faggot cakes or websites.

 

[Lesh]

Well there you go.... perfectly reasonable explanation. I don't know why he assumes that it would even get that far if it had no standing ...literally hundreds of paralegals and law clerks all missed this error? No way.

Jo

Happens all the time in right wing courts

 

[justoffal]

I will try to explain it to you. The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction. They take cases on appeal from a decision in a lower court.

In this case, Lori Smith filed her complaint in 2016 against the State of Colorado and Aubrey Elenis director of the Colorado Civil Rights division. The complaint was filed as a preemptive action against Colorado to prevent enforcement of the statute regulating expressive speech. After losing on the state, the interested parties asked the Supreme Court to decide the case.

So there is no subordination of perjury. Stop that nonsense.

Subornation...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How was she harmed when it was all an hypothetical on her part. No one asked her for a design to begin with.
Hypothetical are always thrown out of court. Except in this case.

It wasn't a hypothetical since no one presented a hypothetical. It is an unconstitutional prior restraint. If you say this you will be punished. These rulings have nothing to do with the Supreme Court. These decisions should have been made at the trial court level. I have not seen anything from the original case so I don't know. When it got to the Supreme Court level the harm was having the statute applied against her at the trial in District Court.

 

[BackAgain]

A right wing extremist, Lorie Smith, was thinking about creating websites. Lorie Smith also wanted her 15 minutes of fame, so she created a company called 303 Creative and then filed a lawsuit claiming that a gay couple known as Stewart and Mike had demanded she create a web site for them. This lawsuit ended up at the Supreme Court, and it overturned years of legal precedent which made discrimination illegal. There was just one problem with Lorie Smith’s lawsuit — The so-called email demanding that she create a web site for the gay couple was sent ONE DAY AFTER HER LAWSUIT WAS FILED. In addition, Lorie Smith and her company had never created ANY web site for ANY individual or company. So why was the company formed in the first place? We all know why. Eventually, Stewart was reached, and he not only said he never sent that email, but that he was a heterosexual who has been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years. By submitting false information to the courts, Lorie Smith committed perjury. And, as a result, Lorie Smith had no standing at all to file this lawsuit.

And, because the justices at the Supreme Court knew of the perjury before they began deliberations, they suborned the perjury. In addition, several justices committed perjury during their Senate confirmations by stating that they would abide by precedent, known as Stare Decisis, and then did the opposite. This week, The Supreme Court of the United States officially became a corrupt criminal enterprise

The Supreme Court of the United States is guilty of subornation of perjury

A right wing extremist, Lorie Smith, was thinking about creating websites. Lorie Smith also wanted her 15 minutes of fame, so she created a company called 303 Creative and then filed a lawsuit claiming that a gay couple known as Stewart and Mike had...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt, and illegitimate court in the nations history.

You shouldn’t use terms you don’t understand. You could take your eye out.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope. Forced diversity always harms national cohesiveness. The forced busing of the 1970s, for example, did nothing but destroy neighborhood schools.

I disagree.
People will always make false assumptions about others unless they actually come in contract.
So forced diversity always expands your experiences and makes people learn their assumptions are false.
Forced busing failed, but not because of diversity.
It was the extra distance, time, and lack of neighborhood involvement.