Supreme Court's top judge issues chilling warning as Trump targets his own appointees

illinoisguy said:
If I express disagreement with the head of state and/or government of China, or Russia, or Canada, does that mean that I am a racist and that I hate all people of Chinese, Russian or Canadian ethnicity?

We have been told that we are fighting Iran purely on behalf of American interests, and in order to free the Iranian people that we love so much. Supposedly this war has nothing to do with Israel, we are not fighting for Israel, it's purely a coincidence that Bibi has been begging us to attack Iran for him for the last 30 years. So, since it's absolutely not about Israel, how is it that any expression of disagreement or doubt about the wisdom of the war with Iran is "anti-Semitic?"
Click to expand...
So, you’re for the war.

You will not see it that way in five years.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
We can agree that we live in a hyper partisan culture. Where we disagree I guess is in how we as Christians respond and react to that culture
Click to expand...
Feel free to lament with me the active and avid participation of our Christian brothers and sisters in the ungodly behavior of the world via the ugliness of the current state of our political interactions.

Paul's list in Romans gets truncated down to just the sexual stuff. We tend to ignore the other stuff that too often applies to us. And even if we aren't actively participating we still enjoy the show, so to speak.



Romans 1:29 ... They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 ;slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

You rag on me about purity. This list is about the fact that we all have to contend with the struggle for purity. If nothing on this list applies to you by your own actions or you never find yourself condoning, excusing, ignoring, overlooking it when someone else is guilty of something on the list, then you are claiming a purity beyond anything that I have ever dared to say about myself.

I have given the example before but will say it again. Rush Limbaugh was a guilty pleasure for many Christians. He was not godly. He was not edifying. He was as worldly as a man could be. Yet he was followed, quoted, extolled and considered to be a great man of maybe even heroic proportion. But he can be found in the list above and there is no shortage of Christians who approved of those actions on his part.
 
subllibrm said:
Feel free to lament with me the active and avid participation of our Christian brothers and sisters in the ungodly behavior of the world via the ugliness of the current state of our political interactions.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what that means.
I’m not sure who that references.
I’m not sure what your purity political standards are and what they prohibit you from doing.
I’m not privy to what you see and hear other than on the forum.
I do not believe being interested in politics and policy are sinful
I do believe that how you propagate said interest CAN be sinful.
I’m not sure that they would matter to me personally anyway as each of us must give an account of himself to God.
 
Mario said:
I agree! Even the American founding fathers, responsible for so many rights and freedoms the Free World enjoys today, didn't see eye to eye on everything. An example would be Hamilton vs Madison on how much federalism, or lack thereof, is ideal!
Click to expand...
We’d be much better off as a country if the Anti-Federalists had won, but at least they got us a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution.
 
Mario said:
Let me ask you a question, please: where do you "draw the line" regarding "up to the states" and "goes on the federal government's table"?
Click to expand...
One example is marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges took what was traditionally a state issue and made it a federal issue, the result being that gay marriage became legal. Rather than argue the moral or ethical aspects of gay marriage, the SC decision took what was traditionally a reserved power of the states and federalized it.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I’m fine, thank you very much.
Considering I’m a nut, a liar, an old coot and a snowflake I’m doing very well.
And, I’m the one who’s triggered. 😉
Click to expand...
That’s an impressive resume! If I ever have the pleasure of meeting you in person, I’d like you to autograph my Bible. 😉
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
One example is marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges took what was traditionally a state issue and made it a federal issue, the result being that gay marriage became legal. Rather than argue the moral or ethical aspects of gay marriage, the SC decision took what was traditionally a reserved power of the states and federalized it.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the Federal Government regulating state election procedures which is charged to the responsibilities of the states?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
One example is marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges took what was traditionally a state issue and made it a federal issue, the result being that gay marriage became legal. Rather than argue the moral or ethical aspects of gay marriage, the SC decision took what was traditionally a reserved power of the states and federalized it.
Click to expand...
Thing is, to the best of my knowledge, the SCOTUS isn't a body of policy makers but a body of lawyers in charge of keeping the law predictable. It is true that in practice whether judges are 'liberal' or 'conservative' affect how things are ruled. And it is true some, not all, presidents do have some say in who gets appointed and who doesn't. Obergefell v. Hodges was only possible because of a previous ruling made with a Republican-majority SCOTUS: Lawrence vs Texas. Judge Scalia -who wrote the main dissent- made a point of saying judges should interpret, not create, law; this I believe is the spirit of the American legal system. This was an issue of judges-as-guardings-of-predictability over judges-as-policy-makers. Loving v. Virginia was a precedent, if it's federal constitution related then it is SCOTUS jurisdiction. I'll give myself a little permission and throw out some comparative law based on civil systems such as those in France, Germany and Scandinavia: I think Obergefell v. Hodges was a good example of the American people via their representatives leaving marriage up to personal conviction because I see this as coherent with the constitutional preamble stating that the goal is "forming a more perfect union that secure the blessings of democracy to the posterity"; keeping TX and CA in the same federal republic because "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" and "united we stand, divided we fall", was prudent given the huge amount of support for leaving gay marriage up to the individual. Even if we take proportional representation into consideration, we see rural food-producing America polarized but leaning towards support of said measure.
 
Last edited:
Mario said:
Thing is, to the best of my knowledge, the SCOTUS isn't a body of policy makers but a body of lawyers in charge of keeping the law predictable. It is true that in practice whether judges are 'liberal' or 'conservative' affect how things are ruled.
Click to expand...
Right, but it’s still a federal court that made the ruling, not a state court.
 
Mario said:
Thing is, to the best of my knowledge, the SCOTUS isn't a body of policy makers but a body of lawyers in charge of keeping the law predictable. It is true that in practice whether judges are 'liberal' or 'conservative' affect how things are ruled. And it is true some, not all, presidents due have some say in who gets appointed and who doesn't. Obergefell v. Hodges was only possible because of a previous ruling made with a Republican-majority SCOTUS: Lawrence vs Texas. Judge Scalia -who wrote the main dissent- made a point of saying judges should interpret, not create, law; this I believe is the spirit of the American legal system. This was an issue of judges-as-guardings-of-predictability over judges-as-policy-makers. Loving v. Virginia was a precedent, if it's federal constitution related then it is SCOTUS jurisdiction. I'll give myself a little permission and throw out some comparative law based on civil systems such as those in France, Germany and Scandinavia: I think Obergefell v. Hodges was a good example of the American people via their representatives leaving marriage up to personal conviction because I see this as coherent with the constitutional preamble stating that the goal is "forming a more perfect union that secure the blessings of democracy to the posterity"; keeping TX and CA in the same federal republic becasue "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" and "united we stand, divided we fall", was prudent given the huge amount of support for leaving gay marriage up to the individual. Even if we take proportional representation into consideration, we see rural food-producing America polarized but leaning towards support of said measure.
Click to expand...

DrHuk&Duck said:
Right, but it’s still a federal court that made the ruling, not a state court.
Click to expand...
Which is true, but that's what Loving v. Virginia precedents ruled: marriage is federal material when a state's decisions pertaining to it are in contradiction with the SCOTUS' best understanding of the constitution. It could be argued the Loving couple was not being discriminated, the black woman and the white man were both free to marry a black man and a white women respectively, but SCOTUS judges argued that equal application doctrine overwrites that, and Obergefell v. Hodges ratified that precedent. Which again, I'm finding myself in a very conservative position: I'm only seeing Judges keeping the american legal system coherent. But then, I'm allowing with my argument some subjectivity in. This is a double-edged sword: I may or may not like the consequences of my "law isn't set in stone" POV, but I think the effective realization of the constitutional preamble benefits from that (which I actually believe, it's not "mere utilitarianism") and Judges aren't perfect. In fact, one of the problems with healthcare in the U.S. is I believe the figure of the "judge as not a policy maker" is starting to get a bit obsolete, but those are still the rules. Sticky situation...Judge Scalia cautions against building up on past errors, but SCOTUS seems to naturally gravitate towards compounding past consesus and this is tricky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top