New Low From Trump

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Roe isn't going to be overturned by the Court. A conservative appointed Court gave us Roe in the first place. Roe will die by Amendment, as slavery and any evil institution that treats a person as something less than human has...and no president will cause that to happen by appointment.

I reckon it's about time somebody started a program that holds lower courts to uphold previous Supreme Court rulings.

The supposed prosecutorial right to reinterpret rulings and appeal decisions that hold to previous rulings is an egregious attack on the Constitution.
 

Gurucam

Well-known member
Exactly, groping is not "unclean" :chuckle:

groping is "unclean" only in societies that deem it to be unclean by making it illegal. This is the only way that individuals can conclude that the majority of their fellow citizens want groping to be 'unclean' in their land. This is the only fair, Christian, civil and democratic position.

Until a thing becomes illegal, according to the laws of one's country, it is simply 'here-say' wrong or right for civilized and/or democratic societies. A person or group cannot assume that everyone share their supposed wise conclusion.

Without properly determined consensus a thing cannot be taken to be and it is not a moral position for a society. It is simply the opinion of some minority group or person. Such opinions cannot be taken to be a majority opinion . . . and therefore cannot be enforceable on everyone.

This is like those against abortion. They tend to believe that abortions are so obviously wrong. They are self consumed (like popes who killed those who they judged to be witches). They cannot perceive that some others will find abortion acceptable. The only fair, Christian, democratic and civilized approach is to seek consensus.

Acceptable consensus for Christians and people in democratic and civilized societies is the formal endorsement of the majority.

According to Jesus, groping is not automatically 'unclean'

According to Jesus, to make groping 'unclean' some person or group of people must first perceive and esteem it to be 'unclean'. And even then it becomes 'unclean' only for that person or that group. It still remain a private opinion.

If such people want to make 'thou shall not grope', the moral position for everyone, they have to get the majority of their fellow citizens to share their view and then enacted it into the laws of their country.

The above is the only correct and straightforward approach in Christianity, democracy, civility and fairness.

Some people believe that 'thou shall not kill'. However those people, by popular 'civilized' consensus, abandon their belief and support mass killing. This is widely acceptable.
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
...According to Jesus, to make groping 'unclean' some person or group of people must first perceive and esteem it to be 'unclean'. And even then it becomes 'unclean' only for that person or that group. It still remain a private opinion.

If such people want to make 'thou shall not grope', the moral position for everyone, they have to get the majority of their fellow citizens to share their view and then enacted it into the laws of their country.

The above is the only correct and straightforward approach in Christianity, democracy, civility and fairness.

Ouch, I'm laughing so hard that my sides hurt.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Roe isn't going to be overturned by the Court. A conservative appointed Court gave us Roe in the first place. Roe will die by Amendment, as slavery and any evil institution that treats a person as something less than human has...and no president will cause that to happen by appointment.

I reckon it's about time somebody started a program that holds lower courts to uphold previous Supreme Court rulings.

The supposed prosecutorial right to reinterpret rulings and appeal decisions that hold to previous rulings is an egregious attack on the Constitution.

You boyz oughta try picking up a constitutional law book sometime. SCOTUS decisions don't dictate law, they decide a specific case.
 

Gurucam

Well-known member
Ouch, I'm laughing so hard that my sides hurt.

Careful those who laugh last, laugh best. said W. Shakespeare. The same guy who said nothing is wrong or right only thinking make it is so.

Give yourself some Christian space. Your traditional (one billion people) view cannot be the straight gate and narrow way that leadeth to eternal life and heaven, which only a few have found:

Matthew: 7 King James Version (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The above happens because:

Mark: 12 KJV N.T.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

The above result because:

Matthew: 24 King James Version (KJV)
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

The sad result is:

Matthew: 22 King James Version (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I reckon it's about time somebody started a program that holds lower courts to uphold previous Supreme Court rulings.
High Court precedent is binding on lower courts. As precedent expands to encompass new fact and situation or, more rarely, is overturned by the Court, those lower courts are equally obliged and bound.

The supposed prosecutorial right to reinterpret rulings
Are you trying to speak to judicial review? Because that's how some former (usually close) rulings can change. The most famous recent example would likely be Brown v. Board of Ed., which undid Plessy v Ferguson and ended the unconscionable and unequal practice of separate but equal in the process of educating children.

and appeal decisions that hold to previous rulings is an egregious attack on the Constitution.
Rather, there's the right to appeal convictions/judgments, but not by that basis, and the right of judicial review. Both are good and necessary for any number of reasons. So, as with your male landowner business earlier, no.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Roe isn't going to be overturned by the Court. A conservative appointed Court gave us Roe in the first place. Roe will die by Amendment, as slavery and any evil institution that treats a person as something less than human has...and no president will cause that to happen by appointment.



You boyz oughta try picking up a constitutional law book sometime. SCOTUS decisions don't dictate law, they decide a specific case.

A Constitutional law book?

No thanks, I'll take the writings of the fellows who framed it.

The absolute truths contained in the Constitution are self evident.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
High Court precedent is binding on lower courts. As precedent expands to encompass new fact and situation or, more rarely, is overturned by the Court, those lower courts are equally obliged and bound.


Are you trying to speak to judicial review? Because that's how some former (usually close) rulings can change. The most famous recent example would likely be Brown v. Board of Ed., which undid Plessy v Ferguson and ended the unconscionable and unequal practice of separate but equal in the process of educating children.


Rather, there's the right to appeal convictions/judgments, but not by that basis, and the right of judicial review. Both are good and necessary for any number of reasons. So, as with your male landowner business earlier, no.


There's so much wrong with these statements they don't deserve acknowledging.

Go play with your balloons bozo.
 

theophilus

Well-known member

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You boyz oughta try picking up a constitutional law book sometime. SCOTUS decisions don't dictate law, they decide a specific case
In fact, there's been a lot of discussion about the power of review and how the Court has in essence struck, created or mandated new law. But thanks. Nothing gets me chuckling in the morning quite like a layman lecturing me on the law. :thumb: :)

Anyway, there are times when the Court, in interpreting the Constitutionality of old and new law, can in essence create/mandate new law or abolish it. The first interruption of a state law came in Fletcher v Peck, a couple of hundred years ago. Roe undid and caused the creation of more than a little law. In relatively recent education cases the Court through it's holding in essence told the legislatures to get to making laws aimed at implementing its holding. Most recently, the Court struck down laws relating to restrictions on the marriage contract.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
There's so much wrong with these statements they don't deserve acknowledging.

Go play with your balloons bozo.
What, no "Aww shucks" followed by some bizarrely wrong estimate of law and process? Well dang. :eek:

I don't blame you for the retreat. You were making a bit of it up on the fly and ran into a lawyer. In any event, you have a good time trying to will us back into presuffrage nonsense and ignoring the actual functioning of a system you don't appear to have a strong understanding regarding and I'll just keep smiling and, now and then, posting something you have to block quote to escape answering.

:e4e:
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
What, no "Aww shucks" followed by some bizarrely wrong estimate of law and process? Well dang. :eek:

I don't blame you for the retreat. You were making a bit of it up on the fly and ran into a lawyer. In any event, you have a good time trying to will us back into presuffrage nonsense and ignoring the actual functioning of a system you don't appear to have a strong understanding regarding and I'll just keep smiling and, now and then, posting something you have to block quote to escape answering.

:e4e:


Liberals and their gifts.
 
Last edited:

DavidK

New member
Lol, you think yer gonna be hob knobbing and rubbing elbows with the president?

I need interpretation on this one. I don't see where I made you think I'm going to have a personal relationship with the president.

How do you reckon he became a billionaire?

Family money. Family connections. Bailing on failing companies and running with as much as he could get. Showmanship and bravado. Exploiting tax law. Being ruthless. None of these skills do I want used to "fix" the government.

There are a lot of ways to come by a great deal of money other than solid business sense. Why do you think we are told that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?
Not only that but how many of the founding father's had experience running a nation?

Can you point me to a place where I said my objection to Trump was that he has no experience running a nation?

God does what he wants.

I see a theme throughout Daniel that rulers have a tendency to become filled with their own importance and power. When the get to the place where they want to take the place of God, to be the people's savior, He can no longer extend mercy and humbles them in dramatic ways.

God does indeed set up "the basest of men over the kingdoms of men", but usually as a correction to oppress them to bring them to repentance. It's a way He gives us the very thing we desire so we can learn the folly of that desire and turn back to desiring Him.

I very much think that Trump has been established by God. I just don't think it means any sort of blessing for this nation. It's a correction and test for the Church.


Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

You posted this in response to my incredulity that you seem to think anything God does, we can do also. I take it that you think that proving the "good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" means that.

I'll point out that God reserves some things to Himself alone. Vengeance is one of those things. It's perfectly right for Him because He is perfectly righteous, but His word is very clear that it is a terrible pit for our souls.

As the master of all history, it is His pleasure to establish and remove the rulers of the nations. He does place wicked ones in power as a judgment to provoke us to repentance. But then He turns and judges those very wicked men when they inevitably grow proud and blasphemous. It is only presumption to think that because He does this, we are authorized to do likewise.
 

DavidK

New member
...fair, Christian, civil and democratic position.

...fair, Christian, democratic and civilized approach is to seek consensus...

Acceptable consensus for Christians and people in democratic and civilized societies is the formal endorsement of the majority...


...The above is the only correct and straightforward approach in Christianity, democracy, civility and fairness....

The Kingdom of God is not a democracy, it is a monarchy. What the monarch says is right and wrong is right and wrong, regardless of consensus.

The Kingdom of God is not marked by civility, it is marked by love. Love sometimes requires the abandonment of civility as witnessed by the records of some of the speech of our monarch while He was still on earth.

The Kingdom of God is not concerned with fairness. It is concerned with justice and mercy. The prime example is the completely unfair surrender of our monarch's life to reunite us with God.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
What, no "Aww shucks" followed by some bizarrely wrong estimate of law and process? Well dang. :eek:

I don't blame you for the retreat. You were making a bit of it up on the fly and ran into a lawyer. In any event, you have a good time trying to will us back into presuffrage nonsense and ignoring the actual functioning of a system you don't appear to have a strong understanding regarding and I'll just keep smiling and, now and then, posting something you have to block quote to escape answering.

:e4e:

You remind me of the guys sitting in line to talk to the prosecutor.

As a layman I would walk right past them and cut my own deal.

They would start to whine about me cutting in front of them.

You know why I did it?

I had to go back to work as I had men counting on me to feed their families.

Those yo-yos were makin' money sittin' there.

Hey, then you might ask yourself why I didn't need them guys to start with. :idea:
 
Top