Supreme Court rules against Obama/EPA on power plant rules

[DieHardBrownsFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-against-epa-on-power-plant-rules/

[OldBrownsFan]

Reminds me of referees who make bad calls and then try to even things up with making calls the other way. This Supreme Court is made up of too many political hacks and hardly the best lawyers in the country:

 

Politburo Supreme Court – Mark Levin Describes A Court With 3 Great Justices, 6 Hacks

After playing clips of both Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton professing their previous “beliefs” that marriage is between a man and a woman, with Obama’s due to his “Christian faith,” Mark Levin offers some views on their hypocrisy and the topic of marriage.

He notes how this was never a moral issue for the Democrats but rather a political expedience issue. “They’re not for civil rights, although they call this now a civil right. They’re for power. They’re power-hungry. They will say anything, they will do anything, they will destroy anything to advance themselves; to centralize government.”

Levin says, “The Court has made a mockery of itself for the last several weeks, especially the last two days. These justices are not exactly the brightest justices in American history. There are some great justices, three only, only three; Scalia, Thomas and Alito. The others are truly hacks.”

“We have an American Politburo,” says Levin. “That’s what this is, it’s an American Politburo.” He describes how once these justices are elected they are basically beyond accountability and effectively beyond the reach of the American people.

Levin describes them as sitting around all day, every day, contemplating their navels and deciding how to rejigger society. He points to the weakness of the “homosexual-marriage” obsessed Justice Kennedy, having written three childish or absurd or superficial decisions on the topic. Levin is certain that if Kennedy had been honest during his pre-nomination interviews he would have never been nominated.

 

Levin describes this as a lawless Supreme Court that is “absolutely nuts,” who doesn’t deserve our respect ever again and how the federal government has now once again created a situation in which a cascade of decisions will follow, all to be decided in favor of the secularists.

Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/politburo-supreme-court-mark-levin-describes-a-court-with-3-great-justices-6-hacks/

[Clevfan4life]

yes yes they're not the brightest judges because they ruled against something you held dear....that being the non existent exceptionalism of heterosexual marriage which heterosexuals have made a sound mockery of. But when the court decided corporations were people....................chirp chirp.

[LogicIsForSquares]

This still won't help coal burning power plants. We are running out of the coal that produces high BTUs.

[Clevfan4life]

Anyone wanna take bets which scotus ruling in the long run will fuck over our democracy harder? Gays going about their rat killing like everybody else, or corporations let completely loose on our election cycles?

 

It's always judicial activism when they rule against your own cause. I may personally have serious reservations about that corporate ruling but I never said anywhere these are "activist judges" and rage rage rage!!!

 

Some of you blubber like schoolchildren that didn't get their way.

[StinkHole]

Anyone wanna take bets which scotus ruling in the long run will fuck over our democracy harder? Gays going about their rat killing like everybody else, or corporations let completely loose on our election cycles?

 

It's always judicial activism when they rule against your own cause. I may personally have serious reservations about that corporate ruling but I never said anywhere these are "activist judges" and rage rage rage!!!

 

Some of you blubber like schoolchildren that didn't get their way.

 

"Cause"? What cause? Riiiight, wanting to preserve marriage, an institution that's been around forever, makes right wingers the weirdos with a "cause".

You liberal assholes are the only ones with causes. Causes=Liberals, and you're the only ones that blubber like schoolchildren. Its in your DNA.

 

Your next cause, or blubbering, will be demanding that priests and pastors marry fags. Wait and see bud.

There is never happiness on the left. It is fleeting and temporary, no matter how many victories you have it will never be enough. You scum are the perpetually oppressed, always with some fuckin cause.

[MLD Woody]

This still won't help coal burning power plants. We are running out of the coal that produces high BTUs.

I blame Chris

[Clevfan4life]

"Cause"? What cause? Riiiight, wanting to preserve marriage, an institution that's been around forever, makes right wingers the weirdos with a "cause".

You liberal assholes are the only ones with causes. Causes=Liberals, and you're the only ones that blubber like schoolchildren. Its in your DNA.

 

Your next cause, or blubbering, will be demanding that priests and pastors marry fags. Wait and see bud.

There is never happiness on the left. It is fleeting and temporary, no matter how many victories you have it will never be enough. You scum are the perpetually oppressed, always with some fuckin cause.

 

1) Marriage was never under attack, that's what numbnuts like you can't understand. Heterosexual people are still free to go about their business ergo marriage was never under attack. It's just now available to people of different sexuality. If that makes heterosexual people feel un special anymore....oh well that's their problem. And yes it was a "cause"....the cause to keep people from forming a union that your "faith" tells you isn't right but all logical modern day empirical observations tell us that people like you are full of the wretched filth and shit of the underworld. You are the true demons running around this realm trying to impose your will on those around you. And in past centuries and millennia, you killed people for it. Just like what's going on in the middle east right now. In fact worse actually.

 

2) You will never see me demanding that church's be forced to marry gays. You won't see gays doing it either. Some random fgt here and then may do that but you will never ever ever see a national push by gay rights organizations to force church's to marry them. The only way that could happen is if somehow the separation of church and state breaks down and now only Christian church's can legally marry people. Not gonna happen but keep building that bunker....the fagapocalypse is almost here you're gonna fucked in the ass bro.

[OldBrownsFan]

yes yes they're not the brightest judges because they ruled against something you held dear....that being the non existent exceptionalism of heterosexual marriage which heterosexuals have made a sound mockery of. But when the court decided corporations were people....................chirp chirp.

How can a liberal justice like Kagan say in 09 there is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage and then go ahead and make one up? These are the kind of political hack appointments in the Supreme Court today, certainly not the best or brightest lawyers in the land.

 

Elena Kagan 2009: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/elena-kagan-2009-there-is-no-federal-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

[OldBrownsFan]

Liberal Justice Ginsburg who said the Supreme Court should not have ruled on Roe v Wade but let states decide the matter and then when states are deciding the matter on same sex marriage she has no problem with the Supreme Court stepping in and ruling and taking away the decision from individual states. More liberal 101 logic they just spout off empty words.

 

 

The ruling should have left room for individual states to make their own decisions.

"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast," Ginsburg said at the Columbia Journalism School last year:

 

"The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal. We'll never know whether I'm right or wrong ... things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained."

 

 

Here is the best and brightest snoozing during Obama's state of the union speech although I can't fault her too much being forced to listen to Obama.

[Clevfan4life]

How can a liberal justice like Kagan say in 09 there is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage and then go ahead and make one up? These are the kind of political hack appointments in the Supreme Court today, certainly not the best or brightest lawyers in the land.

 

Elena Kagan 2009: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/elena-kagan-2009-there-is-no-federal-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

 

Fuck if I know dude, and I dont' care. All I know is the "right" thing was done here....high time for it too. Now maybe we can all shut the fuck up and get real shit done. This should "NEVER" have been a national issue that polarized so many people. Decades ago they should have allowed civil unions to have all the same financial rights as regular marriage but not the name. Had they done that all would have been quiet and well. Gays were more than happy with civil unions as long as they afforded the same benefits. But no. I remember these arguments back in the late 80's early 90's when I was a kid. Even then I remember thinking just give them full rights and be done with this. I even called what just happened back in the 90's. I KNEW eventually they were gonna go after "marriage" cause stupid religious people were stuck in their own bullshit. I told people this would happen. You dont' give them civil unions they will eventually get marriage. You can only shit on people for so long.

[OldBrownsFan]

I was for civil unions and always thought that was a good compromise. I don't believe gays would have stayed happy with civil unions regardless. They would call it Jim Crow laws of separate but equal and still have fought for right to get married. I don't think even now they are going to stop pushing for total acceptance from people who will never accept or approve of the gay lifestyle.

 

‘Jim Crow’

The schism came into view when Hickenlooper posted this message on March 12 on his Facebook.com page: “CivilUnions passes! Today, every Coloradan has equal rights.” The posting received almost 400 replies, including one that read: “equal rights? This is the ‘Jim Crow’ version of equal rights.”

[Clevfan4life]

. I don't believe gays would have stayed happy with civil unions regardless.

 

As long as it afforded them the same benefits yes they absolutely would have.

 

[Westside Steve]

 

As long as it afforded them the same benefits yes they absolutely would have.

 

I don't think that would have been satisfactory. I don't know what the percentage might be but I do believe that some wanted equal rights but some wanted to stick it in the eye of their detractors.

 

WSS

[StinkHole]

As long as it afforded them the same benefits yes they absolutely would have.

Bullshit. They would feel like 3/5 of a person.

 

Since you simpletons love to equate "gay rights" with the past struggles of blacks.

 

Calling an interracial marriage a civil union instead of marriage wouldn't go over too well would it Cleve?...so why should gays accept it?

[StinkHole]

1) Marriage was never under attack, that's what numbnuts like you can't understand. Heterosexual people are still free to go about their business ergo marriage was never under attack. It's just now available to people of different sexuality. If that makes heterosexual people feel un special anymore....oh well that's their problem. And yes it was a "cause"....the cause to keep people from forming a union that your "faith" tells you isn't right but all logical modern day empirical observations tell us that people like you are full of the wretched filth and shit of the underworld. You are the true demons running around this realm trying to impose your will on those around you. And in past centuries and millennia, you killed people for it. Just like what's going on in the middle east right now. In fact worse actually.

 

2) You will never see me demanding that church's be forced to marry gays. You won't see gays doing it either. Some random fgt here and then may do that but you will never ever ever see a national push by gay rights organizations to force church's to marry them. The only way that could happen is if somehow the separation of church and state breaks down and now only Christian church's can legally marry people. Not gonna happen but keep building that bunker....the fagapocalypse is almost here you're gonna fucked in the ass bro.

[Clevfan4life]

I don't think that would have been satisfactory. I don't know what the percentage might be but I do believe that some wanted equal rights but some wanted to stick it in the eye of their detractors.

 

WSS

 

I think they would have, been told they would have by...you know....actual gay people. You would've seen a few gays prattle about it, perhaps some would have even tried to bring suits....possibly aided by conservative groups who would say "see told ya so". But the national lesbian and gay rights groups would have left it be.

[StinkHole]

1) Marriage was never under attack, that's what numbnuts like you can't understand.

Oh I understand your viewpoint perfectly, but it is you that can't understand the opposing one, making you the numbnuts.

You can argue that marriage was under attack. It has finally been defeated and is now dead. It's passé. Its called a civil union now.

 

Marriage meant the union of a man and woman. Man-woman, woman-woman, man-man... all cant be marriage, but all can be civil unions.

 

Are you familiar with the use of "marriage" when used in assembly literature when describing the union of two different or opposite parts?, or how about the books...the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, and The Marriage of the Sun and Moon?

 

Man and woman????? Get it???

 

Try and understand that numbnuts.

 

2) You will never see me demanding that church's be forced to marry gays. You won't see gays doing it either. .

Psst asshole, over here...

 

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

[Clevfan4life]

omg two rich miliionaire assholes in the UK are suing their church...omg omg that totally means it's all gays. Do you see the national rights groups, like I said in my post if you could properly read, back this couple up? Do you see the national groups here following suit? A couple asshole fgts doesn't mean gays as a whole are wanting to force church's to do anything.

[Westside Steve]

 

I think they would have, been told they would have by...you know....actual gay people. You would've seen a few gays prattle about it, perhaps some would have even tried to bring suits....possibly aided by conservative groups who would say "see told ya so". But the national lesbian and gay rights groups would have left it be.

Well if you believe that I think you're extremely naive. People want a political target not a solution. They want the issue. I bet most of them don't care about whatever rights married people have anyway. Beyond that I would guess that the bulk of the people leaving this crusade aren't even gay, they're just left wing agitators. Shock and offend.

 

I thought the civil union with every conceivable right would have been a good compromise but...

 

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

 

I thought the civil union with every conceivable right would have been a good compromise but...

 

WSS

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you. And that compromise was on the table 2 decades ago. But the argument then was made that if we let them have civil unions what next? Dogs, cats blah blah.....so now they have "marriage". Deal with it. People could have been reasonable 20 years ago.

[Westside Steve]

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you. And that compromise was on the table 2 decades ago. But the argument then was made that if we let them have civil unions what next? Dogs, cats blah blah.....so now they have "marriage". Deal with it. People could have been reasonable 20 years ago.

Well that's always been one argument but not a very mainstream one nor very widely held. President Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton all of them we're fine with civil unions and all of them agreed, like most Americans, that marriage was a man and a woman.

 

It really was and across the aisle solution but let's not kid ourselves that's not what Americans want. They want to humiliate the other side, so...

 

 

 

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

I disagree, that was absolutely not what was wanted when I was growing up in the late 80's early 90's when I was old enough to understand these things. I remember distinctly how vehemently civil unions were fought.

[Browns149]

I grew up in the 70's and 80's and I can't recall the term "civil union" EVER being used.

[Clevfan4life]

I grew up in the 70's and 80's and I can't recall the term "civil union" EVER being used.

 

Civil unions were the crux of the discussion in the late 80's and early 90's. I distinctly remember those television preachers railing against any civil union legislature as a sneaky end around by the gays. The word marriage was only discussed as what the gays would want next.