This latest Supreme court decision is just another in a long line of
really, really bad decisions of the last 8 years.
From “Gore vs Bush” to " Kelo v New London" which was the use of eminent domain to steal
people’s property to this latest gun decision, in the last eight years this
court has made more bad decisions then any court I can remember.
You have a serious of bad decisions in the 1800’s, Dred Scott,
“Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific railroad” which gave corporations
legal personhood, and a serious of civil rights cases in 1883 which said
private discrimination is not covered by the 14 amendment, which then undermined
the "equal protection aspect of the 14 amendment. However in regards
to the bad decisions of that century they were spread over decades.
The conservative judges of the supreme court have seriously gotten
it wrong and the American people will pay for their idiocy.
I expect the next act of complete stupidity to overrule Roe vs wade.
and then all hell will break loose. IF IMP wants his civil war, overruling
Roe vs wade could do it.
I think you’re angry Mr. K … I am fairly certain you are …
But which decision is causing you distress … or is it the fact that the Supreme courty has become a puppet of political institution with little respect for maintaining the sanctity of original intent within the Constitution?
I would say this is exactly the problem, but it is much bigger than this. No one is educated to understand our democracy, so how can anyone base decisions on the principles for which this nation stands, instead of personal experience and opinion? If the people can not defend their democracy, it won’t be defended, and defending it does not mean military force. It means education in the history of democracy that is meaningful education, not just remembering a list of facts that will be on government test that are totally devoid of any sense of meaning.
of course… and the socialist tyrants (democrats) have been rewriting history text books and controlling education in america for 50 years planning for a political move to a socialist totalitarianism… but no, there will be blood first.
Seems like Kennedy is the only non-partisan justice on the bench. It’s hard to achieve the “checks and balances” we’re supposed to have in government when the Supreme Court judges consistently line up behind party lines.
Always with the Nazis, Imp. Listen, the Nazis did a lot of things. They ate, they slept, they breathed a predominantly oxygen gas. Just because the Nazis did something, doesn’t mean that it’s bad to do it. The things the Nazis did that are bad, are bad independently of the fact that the Nazis did them. The Nazis are bad because they did bad things, and not the other way around.
Sittlichkeit, you never had complete freedom of religion. You could never kill someone on religious grounds and get away with it. The ruling only held that states could prevent people from doing otherwise illegal things in the name of religion.
no, the nazi’s program of eugenics was a copy of programs started by american progressives at the turn of the 20th century… but creating a master race is a peachy thing… being a totalitarian socialist and a racist trying to create the master race is great if you’re liberal… [huge vomiting smiley]
The supreme court like anything else has become more politicized.
Anymore the judges go to the highest bidder…
I’m afraid I don’t understand how all of this has become a big surprise to people in this thread since this sort of behavior has been going on for a very long time where it has almost become traditionally American.
We went from making the state provide a compelling interest and no alternatives in order to infringe on your religious rights, to the state being able to ban anything it wants as long as the law is generally applicable.
I mean, I’m opposed to the drug laws outside of the context of religius freedom, so of course I agree there’s no ‘compelling interest’ in banning peyote use. But that’s sort of besides the point here. For whatever reason, the law says that the use of drugs is illegal, and it’s not anything new to say that you cannot break the law in pursuit of your religious convictions. Peyote wasn’t made illegal (presumably) because of this religious group, it just happened to be a group whose religious practices were affected by the law. If the state rules that the rights of citizens supposedly protected by laws prohibiting peyote use, are more (pardon the pun) sacred than the rights of the citizens whose religious beliefs require peyote use, they will rule against the religious group. I don’t think the represents any sort of general change of the sort you seem to imply.
Well, the best way to track a general change is to look at the cases before and after Employment Division v. Smith.
The case that established the Sherbert test shows the change quite clearly. In the case, the government was considered to be in violation of the US constitution when it enforced a generally applicable law about unemployment benefits.
Fast forward to Smith. The Supreme Court claims that generally applicable laws cannot violate the right to exercize clause.
Hence, you have the precedence of Sherbert directly contradicted by Smith.
Incidental evidence: Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Congress passes legislation after the Smith Ruling demanding a return to the Sherbert precedence.
