Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 16, 2016 at 8:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote: OH BULLSHIT, our society is just as responsible for letting it get this far.
AGAIN, you are NOT taking long term voting habits into consideration. Nothing magically happens overnight, things build to these points.
Now you don't seem to understand that the founders handed a very brilliant concept to society. The idea of equal protection, which is what the First Amendment is. Checks and Balances and oversight as well and separation of powers. But especially with religion, even back then most people just put up with the idea because they just won a war. But outside the Barbary Treaty article 11 which backs up the idea of secular common law, ever since religious people have made several countless attempts to blur and erase that wall.
The biggest events that lead us to an increase of pushing more religion into government were the cold war, which lead to paranoid Christians getting God in the pledge and put on all currency. And you talk about Catholics JFK had to bend over backwards to convince Baptists and Evangelical voters he would not use his faith to legislate. Just like today's xenophobes even after 7 years still think Obama is a tyrant.
And Nixon was anti Semetic. Didn't trust Jews one lick.
GOP has been bitter since that loss, and many are still in Congress who started out as aids Cheney was one of those young GOP supporters back then.
Add to that Jerry Falwell starting his "moral majority", while that failed, he did successfully court the GOP up until his death. And unfortunately Liberty University has been a mandated GOP stop not by the government, but by politicians seeking to get votes.
The net result of 50 years of assaulting Jefferson's wall is why Obama can't do what he wants.
Yes, it IS lopsided as far as religion but Scalia was for the rich and the religious right. He'd fit in with any Evangelical and more often than not sided with the rich and the right wing religious. Ginsburg is a liberal, I most certainly trust her if she were the congress and the to confirm anyone of any label.
It isn't about labels for that court, it is about right wing religious people and voters over decades limiting our choices.
You have so much BS in your comments you may want to read up on what you're posting before you embarass yourself further.
The First Amendment doesn't have squat to do with Equal Protection. That's in the 14th Amendment.
JFK was a Senator so if he was going to do any legislating he would have done it when he was a Senator. Presidents don't legislate a damn thing. So it was silly for him to have kissed anyone's ass over that issue.
Obama has been a wuss overall and is .000001 on the tyrant scale.
Ginsburg might be a liberal but she's a greedy old bat. When Trump becomes Prez he will probably have to fill her vacancy in the first week after he takes office when she croaks. She looks like a walking corpse already. She needs to step aside and let someone do something. If we ever get off of our asses are rewrite the Constitution we should put in some term limits. The creeps are like Third Worlders who think that once they are in office they can stay till death.
The fuck it doesn't. YOU SHOW ME, where there is any religious, or political or class social pecking order the First Amendment sets up. IT NEVER HAS OR EVER WILL ALLOW ANY PECKING ORDER, IT DOES NOT play favorites. Neutrality IS the idea of equal protection.
Show me where it says "Christians only get to drive the bus and everyone else is just a guest". You show me where it says "Only the republican party runs the pace". You show me where it says "Only one class gets a say".
The most important part of the First Amendment is the last part, the part that allows ANYONE to challenge a law if that person/group thinks it is trampling on their rights, "to petition the government for a redress of grievance".
If there were a political/religious/speech/ pecking order, there would be no need for that last part.
There is no favoritism set up by the First Amendment. IT IS THERE FOR EVERYONE TO USE.
Now, the only argument one can make, is it is still up to you if you want a voice to raise it and that ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court does not get to pick the cases, but someone has to bring a case to the court. And no, it certainly is not a given that the court will side with the petitioner every single time. Just that the TOOL is available if you want to use it.
YES THE PRESIDENT DOES LEGISLATE Who is the last one to sign a bill, even after a veto and it comes back to the desk the second time? THE PRESIDENT!
And the president and all of them have done it, they can also use EXECUTIVE ORDER. But even that is not a dictatorship because even those can be challenged in the courts, or be used by the President to challenge congress to come up with their own version. Still no dictating going on.
It is also quite common and AGAIN every president has done this, while they cant force congress to accept their version of a bill, they often do write parts of a bill or a bill to congress to consider, CONSIDER, NOT MANDATE. It IS still the job of the congress to pass a bill through both houses and it is STILL up to the president if they want to sign it, if they don't it is up to the congress to pass it through both houses again to FORCE the president to sing it if it gets to their desk the second time.
The three branches ARE separate, in that none can monopolize the other, and ALL OF THEM ARE SUBJECT to the oversight of each other. The only branch that does not offer up legislation but only rules on legislation is the Supreme Court.
The president DOES NOT get to force legislation on congress, no, but they do hold meetings with their own party and even opposition as to HOW a bill THE congress considers gets written as a SUGGESTION only.
Are you going to claim that no president in our history, has never said to their own party or both parties "Hey read this, what do you think of this, do you think we can get that passed? Would you consider it?" EVERY president has held meetings with congress as individuals or groups, not as a member, but an outsider. The still have an influence, even if they cant dictate.
March 17, 2016 at 11:19 am (This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 11:20 am by Brian37.)
If JFK had to say "I will not use my article of faith to legislate" not because he wrote the laws, but because he also signs them. So he does have a say. He can sign or veto a bill, which is STILL having a say.
(March 16, 2016 at 11:44 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You have so much BS in your comments you may want to read up on what you're posting before you embarass yourself further.
The First Amendment doesn't have squat to do with Equal Protection. That's in the 14th Amendment.
JFK was a Senator so if he was going to do any legislating he would have done it when he was a Senator. Presidents don't legislate a damn thing. So it was silly for him to have kissed anyone's ass over that issue.
Obama has been a wuss overall and is .000001 on the tyrant scale.
Ginsburg might be a liberal but she's a greedy old bat. When Trump becomes Prez he will probably have to fill her vacancy in the first week after he takes office when she croaks. She looks like a walking corpse already. She needs to step aside and let someone do something. If we ever get off of our asses are rewrite the Constitution we should put in some term limits. The creeps are like Third Worlders who think that once they are in office they can stay till death.
The fuck it doesn't. YOU SHOW ME, where there is any religious, or political or class social pecking order the First Amendment sets up. IT NEVER HAS OR EVER WILL ALLOW ANY PECKING ORDER, IT DOES NOT play favorites. Neutrality IS the idea of equal protection.
Show me where it says "Christians only get to drive the bus and everyone else is just a guest". You show me where it says "Only the republican party runs the pace". You show me where it says "Only one class gets a say".
The most important part of the First Amendment is the last part, the part that allows ANYONE to challenge a law if that person/group thinks it is trampling on their rights, "to petition the government for a redress of grievance".
If there were a political/religious/speech/ pecking order, there would be no need for that last part.
There is no favoritism set up by the First Amendment. IT IS THERE FOR EVERYONE TO USE.
Now, the only argument one can make, is it is still up to you if you want a voice to raise it and that ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court does not get to pick the cases, but someone has to bring a case to the court. And no, it certainly is not a given that the court will side with the petitioner every single time. Just that the TOOL is available if you want to use it.
YES THE PRESIDENT DOES LEGISLATE Who is the last one to sign a bill, even after a veto and it comes back to the desk the second time? THE PRESIDENT!
And the president and all of them have done it, they can also use EXECUTIVE ORDER. But even that is not a dictatorship because even those can be challenged in the courts, or be used by the President to challenge congress to come up with their own version. Still no dictating going on.
It is also quite common and AGAIN every president has done this, while they cant force congress to accept their version of a bill, they often do write parts of a bill or a bill to congress to consider, CONSIDER, NOT MANDATE. It IS still the job of the congress to pass a bill through both houses and it is STILL up to the president if they want to sign it, if they don't it is up to the congress to pass it through both houses again to FORCE the president to sing it if it gets to their desk the second time.
The three branches ARE separate, in that none can monopolize the other, and ALL OF THEM ARE SUBJECT to the oversight of each other. The only branch that does not offer up legislation but only rules on legislation is the Supreme Court.
The president DOES NOT get to force legislation on congress, no, but they do hold meetings with their own party and even opposition as to HOW a bill THE congress considers gets written as a SUGGESTION only.
Are you going to claim that no president in our history, has never said to their own party or both parties "Hey read this, what do you think of this, do you think we can get that passed? Would you consider it?" EVERY president has held meetings with congress as individuals or groups, not as a member, but an outsider. The still have an influence, even if they cant dictate.You may want to read upon the American legislative process before going on a rant about how it works.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join!--->There's an app and everything!<---
March 17, 2016 at 6:59 pm (This post was last modified: March 17, 2016 at 7:00 pm by Pat Mustard.)
(March 17, 2016 at 11:15 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 11:44 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
You have so much BS in your comments you may want to read up on what you're posting before you embarass yourself further.
The First Amendment doesn't have squat to do with Equal Protection. That's in the 14th Amendment.
JFK was a Senator so if he was going to do any legislating he would have done it when he was a Senator. Presidents don't legislate a damn thing. So it was silly for him to have kissed anyone's ass over that issue.
Obama has been a wuss overall and is .000001 on the tyrant scale.
Ginsburg might be a liberal but she's a greedy old bat. When Trump becomes Prez he will probably have to fill her vacancy in the first week after he takes office when she croaks. She looks like a walking corpse already. She needs to step aside and let someone do something. If we ever get off of our asses are rewrite the Constitution we should put in some term limits. The creeps are like Third Worlders who think that once they are in office they can stay till death.
The fuck it doesn't. YOU SHOW ME, where there is any religious, or political or class social pecking order the First Amendment sets up. IT NEVER HAS OR EVER WILL ALLOW ANY PECKING ORDER, IT DOES NOT play favorites. Neutrality IS the idea of equal protection.
Show me where it says "Christians only get to drive the bus and everyone else is just a guest". You show me where it says "Only the republican party runs the pace". You show me where it says "Only one class gets a say".
The most important part of the First Amendment is the last part, the part that allows ANYONE to challenge a law if that person/group thinks it is trampling on their rights, "to petition the government for a redress of grievance".
If there were a political/religious/speech/ pecking order, there would be no need for that last part.
There is no favoritism set up by the First Amendment. IT IS THERE FOR EVERYONE TO USE.
Now, the only argument one can make, is it is still up to you if you want a voice to raise it and that ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court does not get to pick the cases, but someone has to bring a case to the court. And no, it certainly is not a given that the court will side with the petitioner every single time. Just that the TOOL is available if you want to use it.
YES THE PRESIDENT DOES LEGISLATE Who is the last one to sign a bill, even after a veto and it comes back to the desk the second time? THE PRESIDENT!
And the president and all of them have done it, they can also use EXECUTIVE ORDER. But even that is not a dictatorship because even those can be challenged in the courts, or be used by the President to challenge congress to come up with their own version. Still no dictating going on.
It is also quite common and AGAIN every president has done this, while they cant force congress to accept their version of a bill, they often do write parts of a bill or a bill to congress to consider, CONSIDER, NOT MANDATE. It IS still the job of the congress to pass a bill through both houses and it is STILL up to the president if they want to sign it, if they don't it is up to the congress to pass it through both houses again to FORCE the president to sing it if it gets to their desk the second time.
The three branches ARE separate, in that none can monopolize the other, and ALL OF THEM ARE SUBJECT to the oversight of each other. The only branch that does not offer up legislation but only rules on legislation is the Supreme Court.
The president DOES NOT get to force legislation on congress, no, but they do hold meetings with their own party and even opposition as to HOW a bill THE congress considers gets written as a SUGGESTION only.
Are you going to claim that no president in our history, has never said to their own party or both parties "Hey read this, what do you think of this, do you think we can get that passed? Would you consider it?" EVERY president has held meetings with congress as individuals or groups, not as a member, but an outsider. The still have an influence, even if they cant dictate.
Good Idea not to argue with Nazis, or trolls pretending to be Nazis
Not surprisingly, it's Senators up for reelection (especially in blue states) that are afraid of being labeled as obstructionist.
Somewhat amusingly, former John McCain strategist Steve Schmidt says, "To defeat a presidential nomination, it is usually better to derail it slowly over time — not announce blanket opposition up front." Sound's a lot like the Romney campaign's Etch-a-Sketch metaphor. I'm not at all a good bullshitter myself but here's something I can figure out: Don't TELL them you're going to bullshit them!
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Not surprisingly, it's Senators up for reelection (especially in blue states) that are afraid of being labeled as obstructionist.
Somewhat amusingly, former John McCain strategist Steve Schmidt says, "To defeat a presidential nomination, it is usually better to derail it slowly over time — not announce blanket opposition up front." Sound's a lot like the Romney campaign's Etch-a-Sketch metaphor. I'm not at all a good bullshitter myself but here's something I can figure out: Don't TELL them you're going to bullshit them!
The best way to handle a SCOTUS block and rejection is just to forget about it. So when the dummies turn down your first nominee you don't go into a tizzy and put up another one. You simply let it sit vacant. When they start to complain you put up the guy that they had just rejected.
![[Image: Iago-Quote-Surprise.png]](https://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2014/06/Iago-Quote-Surprise.png)
