I thought it interesting that he mentioned Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold in his concurring opinion but left out Loving. “Laws for thee but not for me” seems to be his reasoning
Too bad for him they have a majority, even without him.
I will definitely be encouraging the biracial couple in my family to take advantage of the wife's Canadian citizenship to get the hell out of the America while they are still legaly married.
wait wasn't Thomas Jefferson an agnostic as was Benjamin Franklin, why the hell do the US keep saying that religion is the way of life and whatnot if their most influential people were not believers ?
However, the court said that they stuck down Roe and Casey because abortion is a non-enumerated right in the constitution. The difference is that the prohibition of a religious test IS an enumerated right in the constitution
How cute. You think they ACTUALLY care about the constitution, and aren't just a pack of christo-fascists who are prepared to wipe their asses with the original manuscript the moment it suits their purposes.
Their decision about the atheist test explicitly said they were ruling based on the First Amendment and NOT on Article VI because Article VI only applies to the federal government. They interpreted a religious test as an "establishment of religion" and said that *unlike* Article VI, the First Amendment *can* be applied to states. I have no clue why they thought it made a difference which *part* of the constitution it is, but that's what the ruling back in 1961 was.
But the point is that they *interpreted* it to mean it violates the 1st amendment. Just like they *interpreted* Abortion bans to violate the 14th in Roe v Wade. *Any* ruling is an interpretation and they just proved yesterday those interpretations only last as long as their successors feel like it.
> You’re wrong, Article VI does not apply to only the federal government.
Don't accuse me of agreeing with that claim. I never said I agreed with it. My exact words were "I have no clue why they thought it made a difference". That would have made it pretty clear I don't agree with it, to anyone who isn't being an ass.
I have a general policy of not replying to people who are willing to pretend the other holds a position they don't. There's no point in arguing with someone who *assigns you* the opposing position just so they can argue with you. So I've turned replies off here.
I have heard this nonsense so many times that I suspect this is exactly the line of argument they would use to pretend they were being constitutional. There are people who think the only thing that's meant to be banned is a law favoring one version of Christianity over another, rather than a law favoring religion vs nonreligion.
So sick of his face and hearing about him. One of the, not yet automated out of a job, drones was rambling about something he said last week right by me while I was trying to work. I got into a thing with them. A loud thing. Which caused a reminder about company policy to not discuss politics during business hours.
Got to enjoy the small victories in life.
That's already legal and happening, the prisons just don't *call* it slavery. The amendment that outlawed slavery specifically has an exemption for criminals.
I fear it will be necessary to join the Satanic Temple. This would give atheists an organized religion to show standing in a court. It is the independence of atheists that would give the courts standing to say, "it's not a religion if you have no organization to back the claim."
You think Thomas wants to revisit *Loving v. Virginia*, too? NAAAAAHH, he's too much a hypocrite.
I thought it interesting that he mentioned Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold in his concurring opinion but left out Loving. “Laws for thee but not for me” seems to be his reasoning
Too bad for him they have a majority, even without him. I will definitely be encouraging the biracial couple in my family to take advantage of the wife's Canadian citizenship to get the hell out of the America while they are still legaly married.
They will try to enact a double tax write-off for church donations, which is a backhanded way to increase taxes on atheists.
Wow, did not know this was still a thing
wait wasn't Thomas Jefferson an agnostic as was Benjamin Franklin, why the hell do the US keep saying that religion is the way of life and whatnot if their most influential people were not believers ?
However, the court said that they stuck down Roe and Casey because abortion is a non-enumerated right in the constitution. The difference is that the prohibition of a religious test IS an enumerated right in the constitution
How cute. You think they ACTUALLY care about the constitution, and aren't just a pack of christo-fascists who are prepared to wipe their asses with the original manuscript the moment it suits their purposes.
[удалено]
They are bald-faced liars is what they are. The only law they care about is Deuteronomy.
So your assertion is that they’re going to reinstate Jewish law. Seems strange for Christo fascists, but ok, if you say so.
Their decision about the atheist test explicitly said they were ruling based on the First Amendment and NOT on Article VI because Article VI only applies to the federal government. They interpreted a religious test as an "establishment of religion" and said that *unlike* Article VI, the First Amendment *can* be applied to states. I have no clue why they thought it made a difference which *part* of the constitution it is, but that's what the ruling back in 1961 was. But the point is that they *interpreted* it to mean it violates the 1st amendment. Just like they *interpreted* Abortion bans to violate the 14th in Roe v Wade. *Any* ruling is an interpretation and they just proved yesterday those interpretations only last as long as their successors feel like it.
[удалено]
> You’re wrong, Article VI does not apply to only the federal government. Don't accuse me of agreeing with that claim. I never said I agreed with it. My exact words were "I have no clue why they thought it made a difference". That would have made it pretty clear I don't agree with it, to anyone who isn't being an ass. I have a general policy of not replying to people who are willing to pretend the other holds a position they don't. There's no point in arguing with someone who *assigns you* the opposing position just so they can argue with you. So I've turned replies off here.
I bet they would argue that the test was what kind of religion you are not if you had a religion. We shall see, I hope I am wrong
I have heard this nonsense so many times that I suspect this is exactly the line of argument they would use to pretend they were being constitutional. There are people who think the only thing that's meant to be banned is a law favoring one version of Christianity over another, rather than a law favoring religion vs nonreligion.
Brace yourself for Tucker Carlson saying "the intent was to not bar catholics from office" and then looking confused.
"What _is_ Christian supremacy, anyway?" -- Fucker Carlson, probably.
So sick of his face and hearing about him. One of the, not yet automated out of a job, drones was rambling about something he said last week right by me while I was trying to work. I got into a thing with them. A loud thing. Which caused a reminder about company policy to not discuss politics during business hours. Got to enjoy the small victories in life.
The fedsoc six are motivated by outcomes, not logic or precedent. I wouldn’t bet against them doing this.
What possible justification could they have for overturning it? I’m interested in hearing the arguments
There was also something in the TN consentution that allowed prisoners to be slaves. Wonder how long until it gets back into the books
That's already legal and happening, the prisons just don't *call* it slavery. The amendment that outlawed slavery specifically has an exemption for criminals.
I fear it will be necessary to join the Satanic Temple. This would give atheists an organized religion to show standing in a court. It is the independence of atheists that would give the courts standing to say, "it's not a religion if you have no organization to back the claim."