Did all of you gay defenders know that gay men can never donate blood? I suppose the supreme court will decide that's wrong too.

Originally Posted by Guest

You can have your civil union. That's what a court house marriage is. But, real marriage is blessed by God and he ain't gonna bless gay marriage. God's word, the Bible will tell you that. Gays might even get a radical church preacher to marry them, but it won't mean anything. You can force law, but you can't force God's endorsement, no matter how you try to convince normal people that deviant actions are normal. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and minorities should be offended that they are grouped in with deviant abnormal behavior, when it comes to civil rights progress. The Supreme in Supreme Court does not make them supreme to the Lord, and America is going to find that out real fast.

The USA is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, it is not the USA.

The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional or not and does not - and should not - take religious beliefs into the equation.

Originally Posted by Guest

Did all of you gay defenders know that gay men can never donate blood? I suppose the supreme court will decide that's wrong too.

Please go to fda.gov to read their new proposed guidelines on this topic. It is changing to allow it. It has not yet been implemented but guidelines have been published for comments in The Federal Register.

I read it at One Blood every 2 weeks

Originally Posted by Guest

The USA is not a theocracy. If you want to live in a theocracy, it is not the USA.

The Supreme Court decides on whether or not a law is constitutional or not and does not - and should not - take religious beliefs into the equation.

They don't take the majority's view either. As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?

Originally Posted by Guest

They don't take the majority's view either. As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?

Please tell us what Supreme Court decision that Pres. Obama has not listened to.

Be specific and cite the Supreme Court case.

No, the Supreme Court does not always use the popular view but relies on the interpretation of the Constitution. That is their Constitutional duty.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Guest

Please tell us what Supreme Court decision that Pres. Obama has not listened to.

Be specific and cite the Supreme Court case.

No, the Supreme Court does not always use the popular view but relies on the interpretation of the Constitution. That is their Constitutional duty.

Thanks.

An easy one without having to look it up is the ban on drilling in the Gulf..

Yes, THEY interpret the law as it pertains to the constitution. Their opinion as so-called experts. A lot of other judges would interpret differently. The only difference between them and another judge is they are politically appointed by the president and politically confirmed by congress. It's all a matter of opinion, and you what they say about opinions, right?

Originally Posted by Guest

An easy one without having to look it up is the ban on drilling in the Gulf..

Yes, THEY interpret the law as it pertains to the constitution. Their opinion as so-called experts. A lot of other judges would interpret differently. The only difference between them and another judge is they are politically appointed by the president and politically confirmed by congress. It's all a matter of opinion, and you what they say about opinions, right?

I could not find the Supreme Court case regarding gulf drilling and how Pres. Obama disregarded the decision. Link it, please.

Yes, the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. Each president will try and appoint justices who agree with his/her views. The justices have a lifetime appointment.

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land. This is NOT a theocracy! It is not anarchy! The laws set forth in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Wicca, etc. do not count here.

Originally Posted by Guest

I could not find the Supreme Court case regarding gulf drilling and how Pres. Obama disregarded the decision. Link it, please.

Yes, the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President. Each president will try and appoint justices who agree with his/her views. The justices have a lifetime appointment.

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land. This is NOT a theocracy! It is not anarchy! The laws set forth in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Wicca, etc. do not count here.

Actually, you are partially wrong. The Supreme Court DOES take religion into consideration when making some decisions. Remember, we have the constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And there have been many court decisions based on one's religious freedom. But, I get what you mean.

The decisions "rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land" until another court decides differently. The court does change when judges die or retire.

We have three branches of government, and the president is NOT king, emperor, supreme ruler, etc.....regardless of what he thinks. Obama abuses his right to executive order, more than any other president. It does not matter the quantity of EO's signed, but the power and effect they have. This King of Czars has abused his power on several occasions and he will go down in history as the worst, most abusive and divisive presidential experiment ever.

As far as your first point saying you can't find anything related to my statement, that's your problem. You asked, I told you, and it is up to you to dispute my statement with countering research. I am not going to do it for you. I am tired of doing the work for liberals. And it was a Federal Court order that Obama violated, that may not have gone to the Supreme Court. But, it just shows one incident of many that Obama blatantly disregarded in contempt. He even said publicly that he felt that the Supreme Court is wrong on more than one case.

There is one branch of government that makes law, and that is congress. Not the Supreme COurt, and not the president.

Originally Posted by Guest

Actually, you are partially wrong. The Supreme Court DOES take religion into consideration when making some decisions. Remember, we have the constitutional right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And there have been many court decisions based on one's religious freedom. But, I get what you mean.

The decisions "rendered by the Supreme Court are the law of the land" until another court decides differently. The court does change when judges die or retire.

We have three branches of government, and the president is NOT king, emperor, supreme ruler, etc.....regardless of what he thinks. Obama abuses his right to executive order, more than any other president. It does not matter the quantity of EO's signed, but the power and effect they have. This King of Czars has abused his power on several occasions and he will go down in history as the worst, most abusive and divisive presidential experiment ever.

As far as your first point saying you can't find anything related to my statement, that's your problem. You asked, I told you, and it is up to you to dispute my statement with countering research. I am not going to do it for you. I am tired of doing the work for liberals. And it was a Federal Court order that Obama violated, that may not have gone to the Supreme Court. But, it just shows one incident of many that Obama blatantly disregarded in contempt. He even said publicly that he felt that the Supreme Court is wrong on more than one case.

First he defied a federal court order, after his administration had phonies up some documents and got caught relative to derailing in the Gulf. You can read what it cost in jobs, etc at this link.

Day 9: Obama repeatedly defied federal court with Gulf oil policies | Washington Examiner

He has also violated federal rulings on immigration more than once as I recall.

"As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?"

Well, this turned out to be a false statement, didn't it? You could not name one Supreme Court decision that was disregarded by Pres. Obama.

As for Congress making law and not the Supreme Court - true - the Supreme Court interprets the law to determine constitutionality of the law.

Is the Supreme Court just a bunch of "fags" who make laws - as one poster stated? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? Were the conservatives happy about that decision? Sort of depends on whether or not it is YOUR ox being gored, doesn't it?

Same Sex Marriage became law of the land the instant the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Davis was legally WRONG in not providing the service of marriage licenses. It was her sworn duty as a public official.

Originally Posted by Guest

"As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?"

Well, this turned out to be a false statement, didn't it? You could not name one Supreme Court decision that was disregarded by Pres. Obama.

As for Congress making law and not the Supreme Court - true - the Supreme Court interprets the law to determine constitutionality of the law.

Is the Supreme Court just a bunch of "fags" who make laws - as one poster stated? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? Were the conservatives happy about that decision? Sort of depends on whether or not it is YOUR ox being gored, doesn't it?

Same Sex Marriage became law of the land the instant the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Davis was legally WRONG in not providing the service of marriage licenses. It was her sworn duty as a public official.

You're kidding right? Do you not read other posts than yours? If you don't realize that Obama violates federal law as well as court orders, then you have your head in the sand. Do some research. Prove me wrong, if you can. But, you can't. You know that my statement is true.

Federal court found that Obama's moratorium on drilling in the gulf was illegal. He was warned, but he maintained it anyway.
Obama violated immigration law.
Obama sicked the IRS on the Tea Party. Tell me he didn't know it was going on and I will tell you that you have a leader that doesn't know what his troops are doing. Therefore a failed leadership.
Obama's attorney general sued AZ for upholding federal law.
Obama is not enforcing federal law pertaining to immigration.
Obama's SecState violated many federal laws pertaining to the safe storage and handling of classified material. A national security issue. He didn't know? Is he stupid or what?

It doesn't take much to use Google. You seem to be smart if not lazy, so you can find all of this on the Internet, if your eyes have been closed to the news media for the past seven years.

Originally Posted by Guest

"As a matter of fact, they don't use "fact" in their interpretation, but "opinion." Obama doesn't listen to the Supreme Court, so why should we?"

Well, this turned out to be a false statement, didn't it? You could not name one Supreme Court decision that was disregarded by Pres. Obama.

As for Congress making law and not the Supreme Court - true - the Supreme Court interprets the law to determine constitutionality of the law.

Is the Supreme Court just a bunch of "fags" who make laws - as one poster stated? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? Were the conservatives happy about that decision? Sort of depends on whether or not it is YOUR ox being gored, doesn't it?i


Same Sex Marriage became law of the land the instant the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Davis was legally WRONG in not providing the service of marriage licenses. It was her sworn duty as a public official.

How about Cala. ( of all places Ca.) They vote it down and higher district judge overturned the voters? Nobody including the president should be able to overturn voting citizens

As on poster stated: the word has several meanings depending on what country or century your in.

Fag. (Noun) slang (2) offensive, a contemptible or dislikable person. The word fag has several meanings which IMO suits the surpreme counts justices that are political appointed which can be predicted 9 times out of 10 how they will vote due to there political appointed affiliation.

Originally Posted by Guest

How about Cala. ( of all places Ca.) They vote it down and higher district judge overturned the voters? Nobody including the president should be able to overturn voting citizens

As on poster stated: the word has several meanings depending on what country or century your in.

Fag. (Noun) slang (2) offensive, a contemptible or dislikable person. The word fag has several meanings which IMO suits the surpreme counts justices that are political appointed which can be predicted 9 times out of 10 how they will vote due to there political appointed affiliation.