SCOTUS Catch-all | Court DECLINES to reconsider Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 682
  • Views: 28K
  • Politics 
May Kim Davis go away. Far, far away.
Send away that brave fighter for traditional family and Christian values? The thrice-divorced, married-the-same-guy-twice defender of Old-Time Christianity? The same woman who gave birth to twins fathered by her third (future) husband while she was still married to her second husband? Say it isn't so! Sometimes these classic stories of hypocrisy just write themselves.
 
Send away that brave fighter for traditional family and Christian values? The thrice-divorced, married-the-same-guy-twice defender of Old-Time Christianity? The same woman who gave birth to twins fathered by her third (future) husband while she was still married to her second husband? Say it isn't so! Sometimes these classic stories of hypocrisy just write themselves.
But at least those were all heterosexual affairs. The way God intended./s
 
Send away that brave fighter for traditional family and Christian values? The thrice-divorced, married-the-same-guy-twice defender of Old-Time Christianity? The same woman who gave birth to twins fathered by her third (future) husband while she was still married to her second husband? Say it isn't so! Sometimes these classic stories of hypocrisy just write themselves.
Yeah, but only straights should be allowed to be hoes.
 
Send away that brave fighter for traditional family and Christian values? The thrice-divorced, married-the-same-guy-twice defender of Old-Time Christianity? The same woman who gave birth to twins fathered by her third (future) husband while she was still married to her second husband? Say it isn't so! Sometimes these classic stories of hypocrisy just write themselves.
He’s only the “twice divorced, thrice married adulterer rapist.”

He hasn’t been divorced three times.
 
Told you long back they weren't going to take the Kim Davis case. They might take a case along these lines, but this isn't the one.
 
A Supreme Court case about dreadlocks could end up gutting Medicaid


It’s hard to imagine a more clear cut violation of a federal law than what happened to Damon Landor.

Landor is Rastafarian and does not cut his hair as part of his religious practice. While serving a five-month prison sentence on drug charges, however, Louisiana prison officials handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head. They did so, moreover, despite the fact that Landor brought a copy of a federal court decision establishing that he had a right, under federal religious liberty law, to keep his hair long while incarcerated.

And yet, it seemed very clear during oral arguments in Landor’s case on Monday — the case is known as Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections — that at least five, and possibly as many as six, justices will vote against Landor.

...

The Republican justices may want to use Landor to rework the balance of power between Congress and the states​

RLUIPA is hardly the only law that imposes conditions on states that accept federal funding. The biggest federal program that does so is Medicaid, which imposes pages and pages of conditions on states that accept federal funds to provide health care to their poorest residents.
 


“… In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B. P. J., scheduled for oral arguments on Jan. 13, the court will weigh in on challenges to the constitutionality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. In a case brought by a transgender athlete who wanted to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho’s ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. In a different case, filed by a transgender student seeking to compete on the girls’ sports teams at her middle school, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that West Virginia’s law violates Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, because it discriminates based on sex. …”
 


“… In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B. P. J., scheduled for oral arguments on Jan. 13, the court will weigh in on challenges to the constitutionality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. In a case brought by a transgender athlete who wanted to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho’s ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. In a different case, filed by a transgender student seeking to compete on the girls’ sports teams at her middle school, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that West Virginia’s law violates Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, because it discriminates based on sex. …”

“… In Wolford v. Lopez, on Jan. 20, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that makes it a crime to carry a handgun on private property without the property owner’s explicit permission – even if you have a license to carry the gun.…”
 
“… In Wolford v. Lopez, on Jan. 20, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that makes it a crime to carry a handgun on private property without the property owner’s explicit permission – even if you have a license to carry the gun.…”
“… And in Trump v. Cook, on Jan. 21, the court will consider Trump’s request to pause a ruling by a federal court in Washington, D.C., that bars him from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. …”
 
Back
Top