White Lives Matter

[Crucible]

Thanks for clearing that one up. lain: They aren't in the constitution of the Court either.

In the history of the Court there have been 8 people of the Jewish faith who sat on the S. Ct., along with 13 Catholics and the rest divided among Protestants (with 33 Episcopalians dominating that lot, the next largest being Presbyterians, at 18). Largely because the Court reflected the times. In our times we don't weed by religion. We weed by political aims and qualifications. It's been that way for a very long time now. You just noticed?

If this country weren't predominately Protestant, you might have a case.

But you don't- we shouldn't have an entire branch of government with no interest in well, the country lain:

I shudder to think about the civics they aren't teaching you guys any longer. You're in for another shock, but the Court isn't meant to reflect demographics.

Nah, it's something the Left has used as it's go-to in undermining everyone in the country who disagrees with them. It's been in the business of revising the Constitution and giving liberals the means to raise hell on everybody.

And the reason is because the vast majority of this country is 'under represented' for the sake of agendas at play- because you have a government that isn't doing what it's function as a government is supposed to do.

Conservatives took the Executive Branch and the majority of Legislation, but it's still going to take a long time to reverse the fascist mud hole this country has become- the more one examines it, the more one can see the beauty in Trump's declaration to 'drain the swamp'.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You realize most; if not all the people in that gif largely subscribe Liberal ideology; right? :chuckle:

Im sorry, i didnt catch that, what does it have to do with the price of rice in china to show applause in a way that even the slow like you can understand it?

Wow, guess i didnt go simple enough... here:

Search Results
ap·plause
əˈplôz/
noun
noun: applause

approval or praise expressed by clapping.

Is that better?

 

[Crucible]

Many of them are "Jew lovers" - that oughta get your bigoted goat :chuckle:

Yall have some sort of self-defeating political fetish of placing all your views and interests into what suffices the Jews. It all stops where the Jews begin, and that makes my spidey senses frankly go off with you all :wave2:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Go scroll back through the exchanges and maybe just see why you're out of order if there's still any semblance of objectivity about you.

lain:

:baby:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I suppose. You?

It was YOUR comment.

 

[quip]

It was YOUR comment.

Is THAT the best you can do?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:baby:

Wow, stunning argument...breathtaking no more...less even.

:freak:

 

[Town Heretic]

If this country weren't predominately Protestant, you might have a case.

No, if the Court was about representation you'd have one. It isn't and you don't.

But you don't- we shouldn't have an entire branch of government with no interest in well, the country lain:

It's sad that you think you have to be a Protestant for that to be true. But it's only sad for people who think like you do.

Nah, it's something the Left has used as it's go-to in undermining everyone in the country who disagrees with them.

Also not true. It's just a rational answer. When you confuse that with the methodology of your ideological enemy you inadvertently paint yourself into a grim corner.

And the reason is because the vast majority of this country is 'under represented' for the sake of agendas at play- because you have a government that isn't doing what it's function as a government is supposed to do.

Another problem of people who think the way you do is that you entangle everything with everything and see shadows where there aren't any. It's simpler than that. Congress is filled with people who represent their districts. The presidency is usually filled by someone that most people agree should represent everyone and the Court is filled by that president and those representatives, filled by people who are supposed to safeguard the Constitution. That's how it is. That's how it works, to the extent it works. The Court isn't Congress or the presidency. You have to be qualified to sit there. If you think the people responsible for selecting from able jurists aren't following the right course then turn them out of office.

And by all means go at them over the number of Jews and Catholics on the Court.

 

[Town Heretic]

Check out the mistakes you made here and correct them, please. I found several.

Not in my prose you didn't.

See if you can find your own mistakes and correct them? Then, I'll let you know if you were successful or not. Since you've decided to go this route.

No, I picked at you a couple of times because you habitually use commas without any seeming rule or habit controlling, other than your overuse. And given how little time you dedicate to the substantive and how much you wave hand at people, including me, I thought why not? Work with what you're given. I'm not a prescriptive grammarian by nature.

So go to and cite the rules as you do. Could be fun. You won't find an errant comma in my prose. The odd missing hyphen maybe (I hate typing those) because it's unnatural as finger movements go. For the sake of consistency, I could have stayed with the colon as an introduction to the quoted material, which didn't have to be inset, except for the larger piece, but I chose to for the ease of reading and separation between my text and it. There are compression errors within the text, but that's how TOL's machinery reproduced the quoted material.

 

[Crucible]

No, if the Court was about representation you'd have one. It isn't and you don't.

It's about representation of interpretation, and because it's full of Catholics and Jews, everything has been interpreted in the liberal way- they've made legal fictions to revise the intents of what is stated in the Constitution.
And
They don't feel bad about it because their authority is the Vatican and Israel, not the Constitution :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

It's about representation of interpretation

That's literally made up nonsense. A litmus fashioned by bigotry with literally no foundation in provision or fact.

and because it's full of Catholics and Jews, everything has been interpreted in the liberal way

Also demonstrably untrue as I addressed a while ago, including a link to a pretty thorough study on the point.

they've made legal fictions to revise the intents of what is stated in the Constitution.

It's an argument that some Courts have done that. And some have gone the other way, as with Dred Scott.

They don't feel bad about it because their authority is the Vatican and Israel, not the Constitution

Because nothing says I've got a rational handle on the facts like conspiracy theory.

Otherwise, as I said in my last:

The Court isn't Congress or the presidency. You have to be qualified to sit there. If you think the people responsible for selecting from able jurists aren't following the right course then turn them out of office.

And by all means go at them over the number of Jews and Catholics on the Court.

To which I'd add, really, really be sure and add the Vatican and Israel bit to that. :thumb: Then get back to us and let everyone know how that works out of you.

 

[Crucible]

That's literally made up nonsense. A litmus fashioned by bigotry with literally no foundation in provision or fact.

Why is the Supreme Court filled with Catholics and Jews then? Do you know how many qualified Protestant Christians there are? This is America, hombre.
And
Why is it such a big deal that Trump inserted an Evangelical conservative in there?

Why are you ignoring this very real thing :chuckle:

Because nothing says I've got a rational handle on the facts like conspiracy theory. lain:

A conspiracy implies more than liberals simply throwing people fundamentally diffused to Americanism into Scotus to rule in favor of your ever growing fascist dump of a society.

You can't go to the media to know what's going on with the government and our goals, watching NBC is like watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central- I have a funny feeling underneath my trust in Trump's abilities that something bad is on the horizon and it's because liberals have become a cancer to accountability and sense.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why is the Supreme Court filled with Catholics and Jews then?

Because that's who the Protestant office holders nominated. Best guess, religion had nothing to do with it. I suspect that a lot of Christians aren't as hung up on the Protestant/Catholic divide as many around here are.

Do you know how many qualified Protestant Christians there are? This is America, hombre.

Statistically, almost anything is bound to happen. For most of the Court's history this particular way of looking at it hasn't, just as for most of the Court's history, despite women being around in roughly equal numbers the Court remained exclusively male, until it didn't. You'd have an easier time suggesting that a decision was made by a couple of presidents to move that margin on gender than to suggest that Reagan and both Bushes conspired to load the Court with Catholics (which none of the presidents were). Or that Obama, a Protestant, was compelled to nominate followers of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths. It's just a nutty notion with no logical traction.

Why is it such a big deal that Trump inserted an Evangelical conservative in there?

Gorsuch? He's an Episcopalian last I heard. Are they considered Evangelicals now? :think: Son of a gun. Or are you going off topic?

I'm not interested in the fantasy section that follows. You can found a thread on conspiracy if you want to and you'll likely get a good initial surge of interest.

 

[Crucible]

Statistically, almost anything is bound to happen. For most of the Court's history this particular way of looking at it hasn't, just as for most of the Court's history, despite women being around in roughly equal numbers the Court remained exclusively male, until it didn't. You'd have an easier time suggesting that a decision was made by a couple of presidents to move that margin on gender than to suggest that Reagan and both Bushes conspired to load the Court with Catholics (which none of the presidents were). Or that Obama, a Protestant, was compelled to nominate followers of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths. It's just a nutty notion with no logical traction.

The pressure of 'diversity' has caused the Supreme Court, among many other things, to be void of conservative Protestants, their views, and motivations thereof.

Nobody ever bothered to change this dubious thing, except for the one president the media has chosen to revile, the Catholic Church has tried to ridicule (everything south of the border is Catholic), and the Jews are taking aim at in the most petty of ways (I've never seen a sole reporter get so much press for being sacked in my life; it just shows who's at the mantle of the media and how they take over your thought frequency).

I mean, try thinking a bit about these things rather than taking the popular perception (the blind one) every time you got something to say

He's an Episcopalian last I heard. Are they considered Evangelicals now? :think:

Do you know what separates Episcopalians from the rest of Angicanism :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

The pressure of 'diversity' has caused the Supreme Court, among many other things, to be void of conservative Protestants, their views, and motivations thereof.

Prove that four presidents (all Protestant) over several administrations and decades apart willfully constituted the present Court along religious lines. Because until you do that all you have is an implausible conspiracy theory of peculiar proportions.

 

[Crucible]

Prove that four presidents (all Protestant) over several administrations and decades apart willfully constituted the present Court along religious lines. Because until you do that all you have is an implausible conspiracy theory of peculiar proportions.

This country is 47% Protestant, 21% Catholic, and 1.5% Jewish.

I don't need to prove anything, it speaks for itself :wave2:

 

[Danoh]

Im sorry, i didnt catch that, what does it have to do with the price of rice in china to show applause in a way that even the slow like you can understand it?

Wow, guess i didnt go simple enough... here:

Search Results
ap·plause
əˈplôz/
noun
noun: applause

approval or praise expressed by clapping.

Is that better?

Lol - clapping by the Left :chuckle:

Sheesh, woman; you're that extreme - that you can't see a ribbing :crackup:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not in my prose you didn't.


No, I picked at you a couple of times because you habitually use commas without any seeming rule or habit controlling, other than your overuse. And given how little time you dedicate to the substantive and how much you wave hand at people, including me, I thought why not? Work with what you're given. I'm not a prescriptive grammarian by nature.

So go to and cite the rules as you do. Could be fun. You won't find an errant comma in my prose. The odd missing hyphen maybe (I hate typing those) because it's unnatural as finger movements go. For the sake of consistency, I could have stayed with the colon as an introduction to the quoted material, which didn't have to be inset, except for the larger piece, but I chose to for the ease of reading and separation between my text and it. There are compression errors within the text, but that's how TOL's machinery reproduced the quoted material.

Pure rationalization on your part. It probably would be best if you didn't make excuses for yourself, it makes you look "awkward." I like that word.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Wow, stunning argument...breathtaking no more...less even.

:freak:

:chuckle:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Is THAT the best you can do?

:chuckle: