Very conservative judges like Thomas and Scalia have already made it on. There's no reason they couldn't have more get on. In fact, it's more likely than not. If you have enough judges like that and they are likely to go along with such theocratic sillyness. It's only a matter of time.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Very conservative judges like Thomas and Scalia have already made it on. There's no reason they couldn't have more get on. In fact, it's more likely than not. If you have enough judges like that and they are likely to go along with such theocratic sillyness. It's only a matter of time.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
I already made my position very clear to all the government representatives of my state in the letter I sent them:
"This is unacceptable. The people of this country will NOT accept a theocratic form of government. This would be an unconstitutional law, and many of us will not stand for it.
If this is an actual bill, I urge you to work to defeat it. Should it pass, there will very likely be armed revolution in this country. It is just as likely that I will be among those rebelling. I love my country, in fact I took an oath to defend her when I served during the first gulf war. That is a feeling shared by many, and that is what we would be doing by trying to stop the extremist zealots from destroying the greatest political establishment in the known world.
Just wanted to make sure our officials understand what's at stake in discussions like this. Do NOT contribute to the end of America...STOP THIS BILL!"
I'm not acting from the shadows, I'm not talking out my a$$. I have given the government warning. If the bill progresses I will contact the executive branch also, and I will arrange (or attempt to arrange) in person meetings with my representatives. At the same time I will begin contacting other individuals and groups across the country that share my dedication to the Constitution and its survival, as well as preparing logistically for what might come to pass.
Understand that any violence is ALWAYS the absolute last resort. Before any action was taken there would have to be periods of protest, attempts at overturning, attempts at impeachment and recall, negotiations for alternatives (such as secession, or splitting of the nation), and so on. Only when all peaceful alternatives fail is there justification for declaration of war. However I believe it is VITAL that the people in our government understand that we citizens consider it an option, and have (by decree of our founding documents) the right to consider it an option, so that they give full thought to any such future legislation.
Not in the least am I argumentatively challenged. I normally don't argue with information, facts, or opinions that are derived from obviously credibility challenged sources. what's it worth?? If your information is culled from THAT source, I have nothing to say. I read the proposed legislature. That's where my interpretation comes from. My opinion is my own.
Spin? I tend to see things as they are, not sensationalized and hyped. As I said, I do not support this legislation. It's not necessary if you have non-activist judges sitting on the bench.
totalcommand
Platinum Member
It has nothing to do with activist judges. Allow me to quote myself 🙂
PrinceofWands
Lifer
They could try at least...one of the two sets of us would be dead at end of day. *shrug* that's the risk of revolution. I don't think they'd want to try taking me at home however...I have certain insurences established. Much better to try to take me in town when I'm about my daily business. There they'd at least have the advantage...but then again, I'm awfully well armed and trained and very experienced. Remember that most of my adult life has been at life or death jobs revolving around awareness and combat...I'm not some desk jockey easily surprised or overwhelmed.
You organize national small unit training and resource groups. You institute a protection program where every member remains in contact with other members, so that if an arrest is attempted there can be an immediate intervention response. You train in guerilla tactics and strategies. You utilize long distance assassinations and disruptive actions. Draw small units against lures, then attack from the strength of supporting communities. The power of an insurgent army is that the enemy can't tell you from the citizens. It makes effective countering very difficult. The more losses the government suffered, the more pressure they'll fall under. They'll have to move forward or back. If back, we've won. If forward it will create civil unrest which will swell our ranks while depleting theirs. Long term involvement in such a struggle would be financially devastating to the government, bringing yet more pressure.
It is VITAL that no neutral casualties are caused directly by our actions. Only federal and supporting state targets would be valid. Now, understand that this also applies to federal employees...working for a traitor is equivalent to being a traitor. However, blowing up a building where children are in day care is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Period. Precision strikes. Perfection in action. Creativity, financial burden, exploitation of skills, marketing, networking, stealth, intelligence...these are the keys. The military is a juggernaut, but that's a weakness as well as a strength. Remember that a revolutionary force has no paperwork, no channels, no red tape, no rules to follow.
Large scale confrontation would be impossible against the equipment of our armed forces. Just make sure every day that every revolutionary kills one traitor, without suffering similar losses. Sniping federal access roads, assassinate federal supporters where they're vulnerable (on the road, at home, out on the town), IED federal facilities (again, watching for neutral casualties), interrupt supply lines, drop communication and utilities...etc. The government did an excellent job training its military and law enforcement people in these tactics because that's what works...well we ARE former military and federal law enforcement and we'll use that training to win the most important battle of our lives. Attrition will eventually even the field and the conflict can escalate.
In my studies of combat and history, that's how you fight a superior force. And it's been very, VERY effective.
Passion wins a fight, dedication wins a war, intelligence keeps you alive to see it.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Many, many, many, many. Since Bushco came to power militia ranks have tripled in most areas. Government dissention groups are expanding rapidly. Those who once declared us lunatics and extremists are now coming to us looking for protection from the ones they voted for. I live in a town of about 30,000. Something like this would raise a force of 1000 overnight, every one armed and trained. Hell, my 74 year old father just bought another couple cases of ammunition and a better rifle scope...and we're talking about the most moderate non-rock-the-boat kind of guy you'd ever imagine (and also decorated veteran of the Korean war). People are NOT happy in America, and it's growing rapidly worse. My sister-in-law, one of the most religious people you could think of, just got her CPL and a rifle...much to the dismay of my brother. In fact they're having a rocky marriage because he doesn't oppose theocratic intervention and she does. This is the civil war all over again, but instead of slavery it's the right to choose your own religion or none. Many religious people oppose the current regime. I myself believe firmly in God, and KNOW that the actions of our government are wrong.
Holy crap!!! This is one of the most ridiculous and outrageous bills I've seen recently.
Essentially what this bill would and could effectively do, is allow ANY public official in any capacity to TRUMP any State, Federal, or Local law by saying that his or her God's LAW take precedence.
U.S. Federal law makes it illegal to bury up to her neck and stone to death a woman who committed adultry. Ah! Not so fast!! GOD'S LAW, the unerring word of God, the oh-so-very Holy BIBLE, says that the punishment for adultry *IS* stoning to death by the woman's husband.
"So, sorry family of woman killed by fundamentalist whack-job, but the stoned woman's husband acted in full accordance and compliance with GOD'S LAW. There is nothing you can do. Next!!!"
miketheidiot
Lifer
if this is anot a constitutional ammendment, can't the courts just strike it down?
dmcowen674
No Lifer
and there folks is the bloodshed the Elite kept telling me for the last three years would never happen.
We ARE on the BRINK.
There will be many joining you Prince and those that join you will prevail. :thumbsup:
robertcloud
Banned
Why are you libs so afraid of some accountability in the courts and morality in the country? The Christian majority has major lobbying power in politics, and I can attest that we will not stop until that travesty of legislation, Roe V. Wade, is overturned. If this is the only or fastest way to get that goal accomplished, then my fellows and I support it whole-heartedly.
By the way, PrinceofWands is talking about plotting to commit terroristic actions. I believe that to keep the integrity and security of this site intact, he needs to calm down.
By the way, PrinceofWands is talking about plotting to commit terroristic actions. I believe that to keep the integrity and security of this site intact, he needs to calm down.
Oh boy. Where to start? This has nothing to do with accountability in the courts. It takes away accountability actually. This has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with religion, which not everyone shares. There is no fundamentalist christian majority. You have 25% and you had better get breedin' if you want more. (Yes, I know most Americans are christians, that's not the same as fundies, like you). If you really had such overwhelming force, you would pass an amendment to the Constitution. But you don't, because most people support abortion to at least a limited degree.
Who says that I still practice Christianity. Ones beliefs as an adult must become their own. I grew up VERY traditional Catholic, complete with Priest in our small neighborhood being an Irish Jesuit. He taught me that your ideas must be your own, and if you arrive at being Catholic, so much the bettter. I also spent years with the Witnesses, several years with Southern Baptist, a few as agnostic, a few atheist, and even a few as a Pagan. Deistic for sure, denominational..........no.
I believe that this legislature is bad not because a judge has the authority to base (within the scope of punishment allowed by the law) his decision on openly religious beliefs, but because it feels the need to specify this. Our founding fathers were one and all very devout in their religious beliefs, yet didn't think it necessary to protect the citizens from this. In fact they used it s a guide to right and wrong.
I don't see the need to protect someone from religion, any more thn I need to force it on them. We are all supposedly adults, and should be treated as such. The Consitution allows for religion but it certainly does not attempt to force it on anyone as this bill attempts. Sure, it would allow Shinto judges as well as Christians but why bother at all??
PrinceofWands
Lifer
I'm very calm. I just have a duty to my country that I plan on fulfilling if the need arises. I understand that there need to be compromises in our nation of widely varying beliefs...however those compromises must be on a personal level, not compromising the integrity of the foundation of our nation, as this bill would do.
Religious people are fine in politics...religion itself is not. We will go to war if necessary...so when you say you're not going to stop, I suggest you buy a weapon and get some training. Keep pushing us and you'll need it...and a whole lot more besides.
As for being terrorism, I think you're a little narrow-minded...which I fully expect from people like you. It's as much terrorism as Americas secession from England was. As long as you agree with one, you must support the other because they're the same fight, just a few hundred years apart. We're talking about lack of representation in our government, and the need to fight for truth, liberty and justice. The form of combat I spoke of is insurgency...guerilla warfare. Terrorism seeks to exact change through fear. I don't want to scare anyone, just make them understand that they have a choice between war and peace. Killing someone is not the same as scaring them.
The end justifies the means, ehh, robertcloud? I'll rate that as shameful, coming from a so-called Christian. The means to accomplish what you seek already exist- it's called a constitutional amendment. If your movement lacks the strength to accomplish that, then you'll just have to live with things the way they are. The answer to legal abortion lies in providing mechanisms that will make it rare. Making it illegal will merely make it less safe, assuage the consciences of those who fail to do what they can to make it less desirable.
Your tactics wrt sources is still objectionable, Maluckey. The Pharisees obviously didn't regard Jesus as a reliable source, either. While it is certainly your right to question the validity of a source wrt the facts, you are obligated to demonstrate that the facts presented or the conclusions reached are questionable, not just dodge the issue by dismissing it out of hand. For a man with a Jesuit education, the endeavor should be child's play, unless, of course, the source's reasoning and conclusions are valid, and you'd really rather not deal with that possibility.
First you attempt to sugarcoat the intent of the legislation, hedge your bet that it's not necessary, then raise the whole rightwing agitprop routine about judicial activism, finally coming around to admitting that the bill is an attempt to force religious content into the judiciary- which is what the OP claimed all along.
We live in a secular democracy. Yes, the majority is Christian, and always has been. Nonetheless, we've done very well following the New Testament admonisment to render unto caesar that which is caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. We'd all do well to reject any and all attempts to blur the line, to remove that altogether righteous aspect of our government.
Your tactics wrt sources is still objectionable, Maluckey. The Pharisees obviously didn't regard Jesus as a reliable source, either. While it is certainly your right to question the validity of a source wrt the facts, you are obligated to demonstrate that the facts presented or the conclusions reached are questionable, not just dodge the issue by dismissing it out of hand. For a man with a Jesuit education, the endeavor should be child's play, unless, of course, the source's reasoning and conclusions are valid, and you'd really rather not deal with that possibility.
First you attempt to sugarcoat the intent of the legislation, hedge your bet that it's not necessary, then raise the whole rightwing agitprop routine about judicial activism, finally coming around to admitting that the bill is an attempt to force religious content into the judiciary- which is what the OP claimed all along.
We live in a secular democracy. Yes, the majority is Christian, and always has been. Nonetheless, we've done very well following the New Testament admonisment to render unto caesar that which is caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. We'd all do well to reject any and all attempts to blur the line, to remove that altogether righteous aspect of our government.
Steeplerot
Lifer
For Robertcloud and his unpatriotic rants about bending over to the same crap our ancestors LEFT old europe becasue of:
The Clash
"The Guns of Brixton"
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
The money feels good
And your life you like it well
But surely your time will come
As in heaven, as in hell
You see, he feels like Ivan
Born under the Brixton sun
His game is called survivin'
At the end of the harder they come
You know it means no mercy
They caught him with a gun
No need for the Black Maria
Goodbye to the Brixton sun
You can crush us
You can bruise us
Yes, even shoot us
But oh-the guns of Brixton
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
You can crush us
You can bruise us
Yes, even shoot us
But oh-the guns of Brixton
Shot down on the pavement
Waiting in death row
His game is called survivin'
As in heaven as in hell
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
He was totally right about the oath we gave to uphold the constitution.
The founding fathers would feel the people straightening these criminals running things out themselves is FAR overdue.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
In this bush whacko world we have sunk into now we have a tyrant ruling THROUGH patriotism.....worse then he foresaw....
Time to jam that reboot button on america with a quickness.........
The Clash
"The Guns of Brixton"
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
The money feels good
And your life you like it well
But surely your time will come
As in heaven, as in hell
You see, he feels like Ivan
Born under the Brixton sun
His game is called survivin'
At the end of the harder they come
You know it means no mercy
They caught him with a gun
No need for the Black Maria
Goodbye to the Brixton sun
You can crush us
You can bruise us
Yes, even shoot us
But oh-the guns of Brixton
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
You can crush us
You can bruise us
Yes, even shoot us
But oh-the guns of Brixton
Shot down on the pavement
Waiting in death row
His game is called survivin'
As in heaven as in hell
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
He was totally right about the oath we gave to uphold the constitution.
The founding fathers would feel the people straightening these criminals running things out themselves is FAR overdue.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
In this bush whacko world we have sunk into now we have a tyrant ruling THROUGH patriotism.....worse then he foresaw....
Time to jam that reboot button on america with a quickness.........
Vic
Elite Member
In addition to the guarantee of individual liberties, freedom is the separation of economy and state. Corporate influence exists in the state because state influence exists in corporations. Corporate lobbyists vie for influence in our houses of government because government has influence to give away, in the form of nearly limitless funds extracted from the people, and if the form of regulatory powers to be used against their competitions. Until the state influence is removed, the corporation influence can never be wished away. FYI, "liberals" created this problem, and now you're complaining about it?
On topic: I read last year's bill, and while I didn't like it, it was not nearly as bad as some made it out to be. It just said that government employees could not be attacked in the courts on the basis of their religious beliefs. In other words, an unnecessary extension of the 1st Amendment. It didn't pass. If this one has more junk thrown in, it won't pass either. It's hardly a reason to stage a revolution, it just says that a government employee can put a damn Christmas tree in their office.
Steeplerot
Lifer
Where did you come up with the idea "liberals" invented corporate welfare?
oh wait sorry rush, anytime you hear "welfare" liberals must be to blame..ok....
Vic
Elite Member
Can't argue without ad hominem, can ya? Sign of a weak mind, you ought to know. As you know well, I despise Rush Limbaugh. Your need to smear is because you don't know what you're talking about and seek to hide your ignorance.
Corporate welfare is the tip of the iceberg on this subject, not that "liberals" are opposed to it, or ever have been. I was referring to the massive government regulations that control every aspect of how a business does business. Why build a better mousetrap when you can just lobby the government to regulate your competition out of business?
From Vic-
"It's hardly a reason to stage a revolution, it just says that a government employee can put a damn Christmas tree in their office."
It's a lot more than that, and I think we all know it, protestations to the contrary. Want to have God in the pledge? Congress merely has to decree it, and deny the SCOTUS jurisdiction. Want congress to deny or allow any particular action, w/o regard to the usual constitutional constraints of an independent judiciary? Just invoke the diety in the statute, end of debate. Want Alabama judges too sit in front of tableaus of the 10 commandments, pass judgement not just on miscreants, but act as God's chosen, to invoke the wrath of God against Sinners? Just have congress say it's OK, and it is...
Want to understand what life under a Fundie theocracy might be like? just look to Iran, or KSA.. different fundies, different symbols, same agenda...
"It's hardly a reason to stage a revolution, it just says that a government employee can put a damn Christmas tree in their office."
It's a lot more than that, and I think we all know it, protestations to the contrary. Want to have God in the pledge? Congress merely has to decree it, and deny the SCOTUS jurisdiction. Want congress to deny or allow any particular action, w/o regard to the usual constitutional constraints of an independent judiciary? Just invoke the diety in the statute, end of debate. Want Alabama judges too sit in front of tableaus of the 10 commandments, pass judgement not just on miscreants, but act as God's chosen, to invoke the wrath of God against Sinners? Just have congress say it's OK, and it is...
Want to understand what life under a Fundie theocracy might be like? just look to Iran, or KSA.. different fundies, different symbols, same agenda...
Vic
Elite Member
Hey, you wanted a democracy unburdened by the rule of law, so that a powerful government could do the bidding of the majority without all that Constitution mumbo-jumbo getting in the way. Well, here ya go. Oops, you don't have the majority right now? Ah, sucks to be you. Can't say the Libertarians never told you so.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
