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

[Marener]

Read the suit that I linked a few pages back and you show me the falsehoods. I don’t read Brietbart or other far right wing sites, with lots of spin nor do I read rawstory or DailyKos which are far left wing sites with lots of spin.

show the falsehoods in the suit and let me know, try thinking on your own and not let others tell you what to think.

You know that the final opinion isn’t the entirety of the suit, right?

The falsehood was in the complaint.

 

[justoffal]

Maybe read the opinion...she had a valid reason. Creating it violated her religious beliefs...it's not that hard. She was willing to do other work for them, just not their wedding. This is no different their the baker case, where people were trying to force a man to bake a cake for their wedding, and violate his religious beliefs. He too, was willing to make them other cakes, or sell them whatever else they wanted.

Why is it that you all think it's ok to force people to violate their religous beliefs? what's next, are ya'll gonna force Jews to eat pork?

The activist/customer involved most likely did her research and specifically targeted this particular web designer... They weren't looking for service they were looking for a problem. They got one.

 

[justoffal]

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.

Like any other solution of this nature it tends to blow up in their faces. The reason the court is lopsided now is because of Harry Reid....they have short memories.

 

[justoffal]

What I find amazing is that the LGBT crowd doesn't understand the morality pendulum of any society. But they couldn't stop the pushing and never once considering that there was going to be an ever increasing backswing from their progressive agenda.

And the backlash is gaining MASS and SPEED.....of course the conservatives will push hard and long and go way too far.

Yes....this is an accurate post.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

No, this was a fake case.

Yeah..... So are hundreds of others. The issue was not fake and was never going away. Worry not...in time it will be revisited when the court has more liberal justices and overturned...then again and again...

 

[Lesh]

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.

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

 

[Lesh]

couldn't stop the pushing and never once considering that there was going to be an ever increasing backswing from their progressive agenda.

Society in general is not pushing back. Right wing COURTS are.

Most of these SC decisions are opposite of public opinion

 

[GMCGeneral]

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

And packing with Communist judges is?

 

[GMCGeneral]

Society in general is not pushing back. Right wing COURTS are.

Most of these SC decisions are opposite of public opinion

Public opinion doesn't matter, ever.

 

[Lesh]

The activist/customer involved most likely did her research and specifically targeted this particular web designer... They weren't looking for service they were looking for a problem. They got one.

The activist/customer involved ...Had no idea they were being named in the suit. They never had contact with this bullshit activist and weren't even gay

 

[Lesh]

Public opinion doesn't matter, ever.

Oh it matters...in the ballot box

 

[Lesh]

She filed the suit to seek an injunction against Colorado law which she correctly believed was unConstitutional

SHE...had no standing and the person she used...didn't exist

 

[justoffal]

And packing with Communist judges is?

Thanks Harry Reid....you cheated and it bit you back yes?

 

[GMCGeneral]

Oh it matters...in the ballot box

And always votes for Commies because they are brainwashed.

 

[justoffal]

SHE...had no standing and the person she used...didn't exist

Awwwww.....well now that never ever happens eh? This is going to be your "stolen election" complaint I guess.

 

[Rawley]

Wrong.
I work with conservatives because they are smart enough to understand why arbitrary discrimination has to always remain illegal.
Those who do not, are not conservatives, because they are not sticking with "original principles" of the constitution.

??? You expressly claimed this decision "forces society to fracture into tiny polarized groups who selfishly only work for themselves and no longer cohesively."

 

[Lesh]

And always votes for Commies because they are brainwashed.

There ARE no "commies" (or very fucking few) in America.

 

[Lesh]

Awwwww.....well now that never ever happens eh? This is going to be your "stolen election" complaint I guess.

1. Jump to essay-2Federal courts must necessarily resolve standing inquiries before proceeding to the merits of a lawsuit. See, e.g., Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). In fact, a court may raise the issue of standing sua sponte (i.e., of its own accord) in order to ensure that it has jurisdiction, even if no party to the lawsuit contests standing. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103, 110 (2001) (per curiam). Although the Supreme Court must examine a litigant’s standing when the lower court has erroneously assumed that standing exists, it will not investigate standing sua sponte in order to rule upon an issue that a lower court denied the litigant standing to bring before the court. Id.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Court does not take “pre-emptive” lawsuits

In a normal world.

There has to be “standing”. Someone harmed..

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.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Your post says nothing about standing or the lie that is at the root of this bullshit decision