User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Notable & Ignoble Supreme Court rulings

  1. #21
    Original Ranter
    Points: 454,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 53.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    411081
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    139,571
    Points
    454,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    80,342
    Thanked 62,050x in 42,494 Posts
    Mentioned
    2137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterVeritis View Post
    The death penalty should continue but be as rare as abortion.

    Abortion eliminated half of the African American population. If executions did the same we could call it genocide.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    resister (12-26-2016)

  3. #22
    Original Ranter
    Points: 454,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 53.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    411081
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    139,571
    Points
    454,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    80,342
    Thanked 62,050x in 42,494 Posts
    Mentioned
    2137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    First, if the Solicitor General actually did suggest that "churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages", he was high; strictly religious functions of the various religious bodies are protected under the First Amendment, and that will not change.

    What certain religionists do not seem to understand is that religious freedom is not a blank check when it comes to the rules and laws that govern business and other societal interactions of a public nature. Baking a cake, setting a broken leg, selling a car, if done as part of a licensed public business venture, is not a religious exercise - regardless of how religious the owners and operators of that business are or claim to be. Seeking to be exempt from a rule that any other like business has to follow on the grounds that to follow it would violate somebody's perception of a religious tenet is an attempt to establish a de facto special class of business operator who is free to pick and choose among the rules that govern his or her business.

    If some folks supported Trump in the hope that he would appoint judges whose rulings would return America to a time when the authorities turned a blind eye to discrimination of all kinds, particularly if the offenders invoked the name of God, I believe they are going to be disappointed, for the most part.

    Whether we like it or not, religion has largely had a free pass in our history to get involved in politics.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  4. #23
    Points: 85,908, Level: 71
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 1,342
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassSocialVeteran
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    281144
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    42,329
    Points
    85,908
    Level
    71
    Thanks Given
    30,221
    Thanked 12,505x in 9,768 Posts
    Mentioned
    176 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Abortion eliminated half of the African American population. If executions did the same we could call it genocide.
    Only if they were unjust.

    I see you missed my (subtle?) point.

    Liberals say they want abortion to be legal but rare.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-09-2016)

  6. #24

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 36,627, Level: 46
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 323
    Overall activity: 99.2%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    163183
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    10,332
    Points
    36,627
    Level
    46
    Thanks Given
    3,995
    Thanked 8,445x in 4,908 Posts
    Mentioned
    341 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    First, if the Solicitor General actually did suggest that "churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages", he was high; strictly religious functions of the various religious bodies are protected under the First Amendment, and that will not change.

    What certain religionists do not seem to understand is that religious freedom is not a blank check when it comes to the rules and laws that govern business and other societal interactions of a public nature. Baking a cake, setting a broken leg, selling a car, if done as part of a licensed public business venture, is not a religious exercise - regardless of how religious the owners and operators of that business are or claim to be. Seeking to be exempt from a rule that any other like business has to follow on the grounds that to follow it would violate somebody's perception of a religious tenet is an attempt to establish a de facto special class of business operator who is free to pick and choose among the rules that govern his or her business.

    If some folks supported Trump in the hope that he would appoint judges whose rulings would return America to a time when the authorities turned a blind eye to discrimination of all kinds, particularly if the offenders invoked the name of God, I believe they are going to be disappointed, for the most part.
    I generally agree with you but it's kind of a balancing act. It appears that the article suggests that the balance became way way out of wack under the Obama Administration and the solicitor threatened to push it further. The religious right reacted out of concern about how far they'd take it to marginalize their beliefs.

    "Perception of a religious tenet" in contrast to a sincerely held long term core religious belief?
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (06-07-2017)

  8. #25
    Points: 45,736, Level: 52
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 1,314
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    16852
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    U. S. Citizien living in Oaxaca
    Posts
    11,083
    Points
    45,736
    Level
    52
    Thanks Given
    697
    Thanked 4,264x in 3,024 Posts
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by exploited View Post
    The death penalty is a barbaric practice that will inevitably be declared cruel and unusual by the Supreme Court. It is only a matter of time before it is banned forever.
    And, releasing murderers to kill again is a barbaric practice that liberals will fight tooth and nail to protect.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (06-07-2017),resister (12-26-2016)

  10. #26

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 252,056, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.5%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Common's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    322942
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    44,607
    Points
    252,056
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    923
    Thanked 2,143x in 1,290 Posts
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thats a good point, how many killers did their time to be released and kill again. How about ted bundy, was caught and released 2 times and ran up a whole list of murdered young women.

    I will say again the death penalty should be used rarely and after all due process. There are a few humans that are not worth salvaging and have done such heinous things to other humans
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

    GROUCHO MARX,

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Common For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-11-2016),resister (12-26-2016),waltky (12-26-2016)

  12. #27
    Points: 28,387, Level: 41
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 1,263
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience PointsSocial
    waltky's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    5335
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,126
    Points
    28,387
    Level
    41
    Thanks Given
    1,903
    Thanked 1,812x in 1,384 Posts
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question

    CONVICTED OVER A BIBLE VERSE: “I DON’T LIKE THE TONE”...

    First Liberty Appeals Historic “Bible Verse Case” Case to Supreme Court
    December 23, 2016 - First Liberty just asked the Supreme Court to hear what could be the biggest military religious freedom case in decades.
    Religious freedom for America’s military men and women is at stake, and could be strengthened or further restricted depending on whether the Supreme Court decides to hear United States v. Sterling. First Liberty Institute filed a petition Friday, December 23 for the United States Supreme Court to make a decision in the case of LCpl Monifa Sterling, a Marine convicted at a court martial in 2013 for refusing an order to remove Bible verses from her personal workspace. Sterling’s religious exercise of posting Bible verses in her personal work area has repeatedly been denied protection by lower military courts, including the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) — the highest U.S. military court — which ruled against her in August.

    First Liberty attorneys argue that Sterling’s right to post Bible verses is protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, a federal law that should apply to all American citizens. But so far, every court to hear Sterling’s case has claimed that RFRA doesn’t protect Sterling’s right to display a Bible verse. “Ms. Sterling posted the Bible verse as an expression of her faith — an expression which should have been protected under RFRA,” said Mike Berry, Director of Military Affairs for First Liberty. “We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will take her case and uphold her right to religious freedom, setting a clear precedent for all service members and their future expressions of faith within our military.”


    First Liberty’s team includes prestigious volunteer attorney Paul Clement, former Solicitor General of the United States, who has argued more than 85 cases before the high court. Sterling’s story began at Camp Lejeune, where she was stationed in 2013. Noticing that other service members placed various personal items in their workspace, Sterling, a devout Christian, decided to do the same. She printed a personalized version of Isaiah 54:17, “No weapons formed against me shall prosper,” and taped it in three different places around her workspace. But Sterling’s supervisor later ordered her to remove the verses. When Sterling asked why, her supervisor said, “I don’t like the tone.” Sterling explained that her faith motivated her to display the Bible verses and declined to remove them. No other person in the unit ever complained about them.

    The next day, Sterling discovered that her supervisor removed the Bible verses and threw them in the trash. Sterling reprinted the verses and re-posted them around her workspace. The U.S. Government then charged Sterling with the crime of failing to obey a direct order, something she was not required to do if she was protected under RFRA. When Sterling invoked RFRA at her court-martial, a trial judge denied it. On appeal, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Sterling’s conviction, going so far as to claim RFRA does not apply because it did not believe that displaying a Bible verse is a religious exercise. On appeal before the CAAF—the military’s highest court—Sterling’s religious exercise was once again denied protection under RFRA.

    MORE

  13. #28
    Points: 28,387, Level: 41
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 1,263
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience PointsSocial
    waltky's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    5335
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,126
    Points
    28,387
    Level
    41
    Thanks Given
    1,903
    Thanked 1,812x in 1,384 Posts
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question

    SCOTUS takes on a sticky wicket...

    U.S. Supreme Court to hear Missouri case on state money for religious institutions
    Jan 16, 2017 • What could prove to be a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case over whether state money can be used to aid religious institutions began with recycled tires and a children’s playground in Missouri.
    A grant program through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources repurposes tires and uses the scrap rubber for playgrounds. Funded through a surcharge on new tires, it diverts rubber that would otherwise be discarded in a landfill and allows recipients to install a bouncier surface beneath children’s playscapes. Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., applied for the grant to resurface its preschool’s playground, but was denied by state officials who pointed to an 1875 constitutional amendment that restricts public money from being used “in aid of any church.” The church sued and lost on appeal, but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Trinity Luthran Church v. Pauley, this year.

    The court’s eventual decision could call into question the constitutionality of “Blaine Amendments” in 38 states across the country, which religious organizations have long deemed unfair but proponents say are necessary for the separation of church and state. Attorneys for Trinity Lutheran contend that the program is “neutral” — it doesn’t promote religion, but makes a playground used by children throughout the community safer.

    The church was discriminated against because of its religious status, said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the church. “The upshot of what the lower court did treats churches and religious organizations like second-class citizens,” Stanley said. “Missouri is interpreting its constitution in an extreme manner.” But Blaine defenders say that’s a slippery slope. “People who say ‘well, this is a general program and churches should get a slice of it like anyone else’ are missing the basic principle,” said Richard Katskee, the legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

    He raises a question of fairness. “It’s a competitive grant program, with winners and losers. … There’s a government official who decides who gets the money. That can be done because that’s the favorite faith of that government official,” Katskee said. “Even if it’s done on neutral criteria, those whose houses of worship don’t get the money are going to feel rightly it’s favoring other faiths. “The states are trying to protect religious freedom by making sure government and religion don’t get mixed up with each other,” he added. “Money going to churches corrupts churches. The churches start pandering to the people giving out the money.”

    ‘A vital case’

  14. #29

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 36,627, Level: 46
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 323
    Overall activity: 99.2%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    163183
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    10,332
    Points
    36,627
    Level
    46
    Thanks Given
    3,995
    Thanked 8,445x in 4,908 Posts
    Mentioned
    341 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @waltky, thank you. Interesting issue. I have no doubt how the Court would've ruled with a Clinton Administration. It'll be interesting to see how the Trump Court rules. On one hand, it'll be more conservative -- which means that it'll follow stare decisis (settled law). On the other, the religious right wants what they want.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    waltky (01-17-2017)

  16. #30
    Points: 28,387, Level: 41
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 1,263
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience PointsSocial
    waltky's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    5335
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,126
    Points
    28,387
    Level
    41
    Thanks Given
    1,903
    Thanked 1,812x in 1,384 Posts
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Red face

    SCOTUS passes on "Sister Wives" case...

    US Supreme Court declines to hear polygamy case
    January 23, 2017 | Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a man and his four wives -- stars of a reality TV show -- challenging a ban on polygamy in their native state of Utah.
    Kody Brown is legally married to Meri but also lives with Janelle, Christine and Robyn. They are members of a fringe religious group, related to Mormon fundamentalism, with polygamy as a core tenet of their beliefs. Brown and his wives have battled in the courts for seven years against a law in Utah banning polygamy, arguing that it infringes on their freedom of speech and religion. They are the stars of the show "Sister Wives," which airs on TLC and documents the life of a "plural" family. In December 2013, the Browns won a surprising legal victory when a federal court ruled that Utah's law against bigamy was unconstitutional. But an appeals court overturned that judgment in 2016.


    The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a man and his four wives -- stars of a reality TV show -- challenging a ban on polygamy in their native state of Utah

    The Supreme Court in Washington declined to add the case to its schedule Monday, without giving any reason for its decision, thereby leaving the appeal court's decision in place. The high court has not ruled on a polygamy case since 1878, when it declared that a law prohibiting bigamy was valid. Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the Brown family, said they were "disappointed... but not surprised" by the Supreme Court's decision declining to take the case. "The decision will obviously not end the struggle for equal protection and due process under the law. The Browns have remained committed to that cause and will continue to advocate on behalf of religious freedom and plural families," he said in a statement.

    Tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists, mostly living in the western part of the United States, continue to practice polygamy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the formal name of the Mormon church, has banned polygamy since 1890.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-suprem...17.html?ref=gs

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO