The sense of Christian entitlement runs very deep in this country. Particularly so in the Bible Belt South. This man wasn’t a Christian, therefore he had no right to freedom of religion. Gorsuch is an absolute disgrace, and should be impeached. I’m sick of the SC tying itself in knots to back the conservative agenda.
We simply have to reform and expand the SCOTUS. I do not know how we pull it off, but there needs to be more diversity on the Court. I find it atrocious that six out of nine of them are practicing Roman Catholics. We need 13 justices, term limits, a new way of appointing the justices, and a mandate that they cannot take away rights granted to people by The Constitution or The Congress.
Christians might want to avoid shrugging this off. Their religion has a habit and history of going after not just other religions but their own as well. What happens when a Christian sect that's not considered the "right" one gets targeted next?
That little poem 'First they came for ....' is very apt. We need to ensure that the rights of people we don't like are protected, because that's the only way we can ensure that our rights are protected.
Make it official: if you're not a Christian and preferably a CONSERVATIVE Christian in the United States, your rights, and particularly your right to bodily autonomy, are open to question, challenge, and possibly revocation. Damon Landor has run headlong into this truism in how he has been handled by the Louisiana prison system, having lost his dreadlocks without so much as a by-your-leave, and the Supreme Court now putting its imprimatur on that action.
Rights in this country in general under Donald Trump have become precarious, and this is only one example thereof. Yet I wonder how many would come out and protest for Mr. Landor.
Yet it's Christians who continue to claim Christian Persecution (tm) in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion and there IS no Christian Persecution.
I wrote recently that they *need* to feel persecuted because they regard that as a sign that are right with Jesus and so are among the "elect" to be brought to eternal life and spared damnation.
Impeach the rogue court and pack it with the most left wing judges you can find. I don't care if you have to pull up a judge from traffic court who lets everyone off with a warning. I don't care if you have to draft a lawyer currently working for the Institute for Justice. I don't care if you have to pull up a former magician with a quick wit currently working the Night Court on Thursday nights. The next Democrat president needs to send a message to the self-labeled "conservatives" that breaking our government to prove their point that government is broken is not okay.
James Carville says the Dems, assuming they win the trifecta in 2028, should immediately make DC and PR states and expand SCOTUS to 15 justices. He also says that they should NOT campaign on those ideas.
I agree as I’m tired of being on the only side that plays fair.
A federal judge earlier today told Cheetolini's minions that no, in fact, the Constitution does not grant the President any power over elections- and showed great restraint in 𝘯𝘰𝘵 also ordering the regime's bargain-basement clearance bin legal team to enroll their boss in remedial 8th-grade civics.
We just started watching a series on Netflix “I will find you”. It’s very good so far. Almost the first words out of the prisoners mouth is that the purpose of prison is to take away your identity. Or as they put it in THE PRISONER back in the 60s, “they’ve given you a number and taken away your name.”
But as hemant and everyone else noted, that only applies if you’re Christian, preferably White and conservative. Just like the law applies only if you’re rich, preferably white, and conservative. Just act the law applies only if you’re male, preferably white, and conservative. Not if you’re female, not if you’re gay, not if you’re transgender.
It’s not surprising to me. The law and order conservatives are helping us go right down the road of lawlessness. Money is speech in corporations are people. They’re not going to find that anywhere in the constitution. Religion Trumps laws of general applicability. Discrimination on the basis of religious belief is fine as long as you’re Christian, or at least a Christian of that sort. Voting is not a sacred right. Privacy is not a sacred right. Decided law is not sacred either.
Actually, "They've given you a number and taken 'way your name" comes from Secret Agent, also with Patrick McGoohan. What you're thinking of is: "I am not a number; I am a FREE MAN!"
Yesterday? I made a few comments about a guy who is going head-to-head with the Mormon Church ... and THEN I went to Blossom Music Center to hear Paul Simon!
Yeah, his voice ain't what it usedta wuz ... but it was SO WORTH IT!
I didn’t start my LSD until the 70s. I used to do it every weekend. I think the last time I did it was when I was about 50. At that point, it was too hard on my no longer young body.
I was explaining to my nephew a few weeks ago about it. He was fascinated. I think he was surprised that such an establishment type was doing psychedelics on a regular basis. But he knows that I will always tell him the truth. So he appreciates that.
Better still, I remember the Johnny Rivers song. (Which, to be irritatingly particular, was titled "Secret Agent Man," which I guess someone decided wasn't snappy enough for a TV title.)
"If you let the wrong word slip/While kissing persuasive lips/Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow."
This case worries me more than just the violation and undermining of a single individual's rights.
Perhaps I'm just nervous, or on edge, or hormonal. It seems to me that as a body, most of SCOTUS is working on destroying the social contract in the US right now. Society doesn't work when one group has all the privileges and a another group only gets to obey all the rules; people have zero reason to remain in or cooperate with such a system. Worse yet, this decision seems to exist under the idea that the same group of people or those with the same ideas will remain in power more or less permanently; history has been very clear that isn't how it works. While certainly there are a sizable group of individuals associated with MAGA or the Trump Administration that like what they're seeing here, this will not work long term and I have very serious concerns about what happens when MAGA/Trump are no longer in power for whatever reason.
Also, this seems like a good time to remind folks that it's not just the US president that Congress can impeach. Good luck to us all.
Like everyone else, I am trying to wrap my head around this decision. Does this mean that an employee of a public school that gets federal money can ignore federal laws designed to hurt LGBT students? After all, the teacher didn’t consent to those laws.
"On Mr. Landor’s theory, Congress could require coaches at universities that receive federal funds to permit transgender athletes to play women’s sports—or face personal liability in suits for damages. Likewise, Congress could bar doctors at medical practices that accept federal funds from administering certain vaccines to children—again on pain of damages."
I’m kinda speechless here. Doesn’t that also mean Congress could bar coaches from permitting trans athletes from playing women’s sports — and the coach could be liable for damages by women on opposing teams because the coach ignored the law? And isn’t being liable for ignoring laws something conservatives favor?
I just stumbled through the 51 pages of the SC opinions, and it's all based on the principle that accepting federal funds on certain conditions, is considered a contract that only binds the federal government and the recipient of the funds. When the recipient of the funds "forgets" to tell its agents that they are now also bound by those conditions, those agents are immune for any lawsuit about violating them.
The thing is that Landor cites Numbers for his right to maintain his hair as HE sees fit. Apparently, that particular verse doesn't come under the list of things these cafeteria Christians want to recognize.
The sense of Christian entitlement runs very deep in this country. Particularly so in the Bible Belt South. This man wasn’t a Christian, therefore he had no right to freedom of religion. Gorsuch is an absolute disgrace, and should be impeached. I’m sick of the SC tying itself in knots to back the conservative agenda.
We simply have to reform and expand the SCOTUS. I do not know how we pull it off, but there needs to be more diversity on the Court. I find it atrocious that six out of nine of them are practicing Roman Catholics. We need 13 justices, term limits, a new way of appointing the justices, and a mandate that they cannot take away rights granted to people by The Constitution or The Congress.
I've just posted a Mother Jones article, the last sentence is really poignant: An oil company can sue, a mistreated citizen can't.
Bear in mind, that Gorsuch was involved in the Frozen Trucker case.
Some religions have more "freedom" than others in America.
Or one has more freedom than all others combined.
Tragically, it's the REALLY dangerous one.
Christians might want to avoid shrugging this off. Their religion has a habit and history of going after not just other religions but their own as well. What happens when a Christian sect that's not considered the "right" one gets targeted next?
It never stops at just one group.
That little poem 'First they came for ....' is very apt. We need to ensure that the rights of people we don't like are protected, because that's the only way we can ensure that our rights are protected.
The Federalist Society Scotus cares not about rights, only power.
𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠.
-- George Orwell, Animal Farm
Make it official: if you're not a Christian and preferably a CONSERVATIVE Christian in the United States, your rights, and particularly your right to bodily autonomy, are open to question, challenge, and possibly revocation. Damon Landor has run headlong into this truism in how he has been handled by the Louisiana prison system, having lost his dreadlocks without so much as a by-your-leave, and the Supreme Court now putting its imprimatur on that action.
Rights in this country in general under Donald Trump have become precarious, and this is only one example thereof. Yet I wonder how many would come out and protest for Mr. Landor.
Yet it's Christians who continue to claim Christian Persecution (tm) in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion and there IS no Christian Persecution.
They are the poor, persecuted majority.
I wrote recently that they *need* to feel persecuted because they regard that as a sign that are right with Jesus and so are among the "elect" to be brought to eternal life and spared damnation.
It’s designed that way. The persecution complex is part of their brainwashing.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1be5fb1c613473c4677f2af3b1b7461199ac16807f392d06f86d3e5fdab0cc57.jpg
Impeach the rogue court and pack it with the most left wing judges you can find. I don't care if you have to pull up a judge from traffic court who lets everyone off with a warning. I don't care if you have to draft a lawyer currently working for the Institute for Justice. I don't care if you have to pull up a former magician with a quick wit currently working the Night Court on Thursday nights. The next Democrat president needs to send a message to the self-labeled "conservatives" that breaking our government to prove their point that government is broken is not okay.
James Carville says the Dems, assuming they win the trifecta in 2028, should immediately make DC and PR states and expand SCOTUS to 15 justices. He also says that they should NOT campaign on those ideas.
I agree as I’m tired of being on the only side that plays fair.
Indeed. This court seems to be determined to dump on anyone that isn't THEM, that doesn't share their narrow, self-involved mindset or religion.
I said it in my original comment: human rights in this country are IN DANGER, and that requires a strong and no-nonsense response.
Calling Judge Harry Stone, calling Judge Harry Stone.
Religious freedom in the current United States.
You're free to be what ever kind of Christian you want to be, unless of course you upset the evangelicals who have more rights than everyone else.
"You're free to be whatever kind of Christian you want to be..."
Country AND Western.
Both types!
I love that movie! :D
And are bigger snowflakes than the rest of Christianity put together, or darn near!
OT- Chalk up another L for the world's biggest loser: https://apnews.com/article/trump-elections-judge-358912bcb6c7223b3d2d36465156fde9
A federal judge earlier today told Cheetolini's minions that no, in fact, the Constitution does not grant the President any power over elections- and showed great restraint in 𝘯𝘰𝘵 also ordering the regime's bargain-basement clearance bin legal team to enroll their boss in remedial 8th-grade civics.
We just started watching a series on Netflix “I will find you”. It’s very good so far. Almost the first words out of the prisoners mouth is that the purpose of prison is to take away your identity. Or as they put it in THE PRISONER back in the 60s, “they’ve given you a number and taken away your name.”
But as hemant and everyone else noted, that only applies if you’re Christian, preferably White and conservative. Just like the law applies only if you’re rich, preferably white, and conservative. Just act the law applies only if you’re male, preferably white, and conservative. Not if you’re female, not if you’re gay, not if you’re transgender.
It’s not surprising to me. The law and order conservatives are helping us go right down the road of lawlessness. Money is speech in corporations are people. They’re not going to find that anywhere in the constitution. Religion Trumps laws of general applicability. Discrimination on the basis of religious belief is fine as long as you’re Christian, or at least a Christian of that sort. Voting is not a sacred right. Privacy is not a sacred right. Decided law is not sacred either.
Actually, "They've given you a number and taken 'way your name" comes from Secret Agent, also with Patrick McGoohan. What you're thinking of is: "I am not a number; I am a FREE MAN!"
Both really great English TV series!
You old people always remembering old stuff!
But don't ask us what happened yesterday.
What is this “yesterday” you are talking about? I don’t remember anything about it.
Yesterday? I made a few comments about a guy who is going head-to-head with the Mormon Church ... and THEN I went to Blossom Music Center to hear Paul Simon!
Yeah, his voice ain't what it usedta wuz ... but it was SO WORTH IT!
*makes salute by forming hand into the shape of a 6*
Be seeing you. ;)
Dang, what's that from? It's been bugging me for a while now.
"The Prisoner."
And while we're at it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hPm4eiiD08
That would bring back memories if I had any.
Did you do too much LDS back in the 60s?
https://youtu.be/pgHxFNFWlZc
I think the LDS does a little too much LDS. But I suppose I would too if I thought I was gonna get my own Planet to rule over.
I didn’t start my LSD until the 70s. I used to do it every weekend. I think the last time I did it was when I was about 50. At that point, it was too hard on my no longer young body.
I was explaining to my nephew a few weeks ago about it. He was fascinated. I think he was surprised that such an establishment type was doing psychedelics on a regular basis. But he knows that I will always tell him the truth. So he appreciates that.
Sang along in a fairly decent impression of Mr. Rivers. :)
I'll see your Secret Agent Man and do you one better:
https://youtu.be/F-uQmvoIzW4
Sticking with the spy genre, here's this one
youtu.be/F7KMMxAQp8I
Josie Cotton is better looking. 😉
😁 I have my moments! 😁
“Secret Agent” (aka “Danger Man”) was the adventures of John Drake, who may very well have been the Village’s “#6” in "The Prisoner."
(if you’re of the opinion that “The Prisoner” was a sequel of sorts to “Secret Agent”/”Danger Man,” that is)
I was practically a zygote when all that was happening. Pay no attention to my actual age
...and now I've got "The Golden Age of Video" stuck in my head again, so you all get to have it in yours too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFM140rju4k
Better still, I remember the Johnny Rivers song. (Which, to be irritatingly particular, was titled "Secret Agent Man," which I guess someone decided wasn't snappy enough for a TV title.)
"If you let the wrong word slip/While kissing persuasive lips/Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow."
Hey it's me
And I feel like a number
Feel like a number
Feel like a stranger
A stranger in this land
I feel like a number
I'm not a number
I'm not a number
Dammit I'm a man
I said I'm a man .....
The Great Bob Seger
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-7nX82-Y50&pp=ygUdam9zaWUgY290dG9uIHNlY3JldCBhZ2VudCBtYW4%3D
𝐼 𝑊𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑌𝑜𝑢 featuring Chi McBride, who was in 𝑯𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝑻𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒕 . Based on a Distinguished Distinguished Competition character.
Most of these young whipper snappers I have no idea who they are. Sometimes I recognize them from previous stuff. Other times not.
Distinguished Competition. *phones are shit for doing things*
You're being punished for not being a True Believer.
The character was also in an episode of Arrow.
This case worries me more than just the violation and undermining of a single individual's rights.
Perhaps I'm just nervous, or on edge, or hormonal. It seems to me that as a body, most of SCOTUS is working on destroying the social contract in the US right now. Society doesn't work when one group has all the privileges and a another group only gets to obey all the rules; people have zero reason to remain in or cooperate with such a system. Worse yet, this decision seems to exist under the idea that the same group of people or those with the same ideas will remain in power more or less permanently; history has been very clear that isn't how it works. While certainly there are a sizable group of individuals associated with MAGA or the Trump Administration that like what they're seeing here, this will not work long term and I have very serious concerns about what happens when MAGA/Trump are no longer in power for whatever reason.
Also, this seems like a good time to remind folks that it's not just the US president that Congress can impeach. Good luck to us all.
I have much the same concern. French Revolution anyone?
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.HlWKjiSPNJU_1CTTF-S5dgAAAA%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=4910aec1948f28de034bf3e2b17339b0e92cca7c318817bdf862342d4bd42938&ipo=images
Time for this again?
Reparationssats för Demokrati. :P
Like everyone else, I am trying to wrap my head around this decision. Does this mean that an employee of a public school that gets federal money can ignore federal laws designed to hurt LGBT students? After all, the teacher didn’t consent to those laws.
That's exactly what Gorsuch wrote:
"On Mr. Landor’s theory, Congress could require coaches at universities that receive federal funds to permit transgender athletes to play women’s sports—or face personal liability in suits for damages. Likewise, Congress could bar doctors at medical practices that accept federal funds from administering certain vaccines to children—again on pain of damages."
From <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1197_h3ci.pdf> page 17/51
I’m kinda speechless here. Doesn’t that also mean Congress could bar coaches from permitting trans athletes from playing women’s sports — and the coach could be liable for damages by women on opposing teams because the coach ignored the law? And isn’t being liable for ignoring laws something conservatives favor?
I just stumbled through the 51 pages of the SC opinions, and it's all based on the principle that accepting federal funds on certain conditions, is considered a contract that only binds the federal government and the recipient of the funds. When the recipient of the funds "forgets" to tell its agents that they are now also bound by those conditions, those agents are immune for any lawsuit about violating them.
Thank you for your effort. I find this bizarre but then IANAL.
I’ve been painting cabinets all day. I do appreciate your research.
Three people who are experienced lawyers also find this reasoning bizarre, the dissenting justices.
Fresh air, get some fresh air.
I’m going to do more painting after dinner and drinking. What could possibly go wrong?
I opted for rye whiskey instead. Redwood Empire today.
The $30 stuff, not the $80 stuff.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/465f9b6739f6910c9a76eafea58e8216787b3f321dded86d3c3757f9daf07c45.jpg
If a Christian's rights were violated in the same way, they would have ruled differently.
The thing is that Landor cites Numbers for his right to maintain his hair as HE sees fit. Apparently, that particular verse doesn't come under the list of things these cafeteria Christians want to recognize.
I noticed that too. He doing the bible rong.
Or right depending on your point of view.
Considering how the bible manages to promote either side of too many arguments, there is likely no right or wrong way to cite the bible.
Which is why, as a moral guide, it is utterly USELESS.
They'd have ruled differently for a white Christian even if it came out in discovery that he'd shaved his own damned head.
OT- Found some more election fraud: https://apnews.com/article/south-dakota-election-fraud-state-lawmaker-e46bd4d3485043d968a95940170bd6d6
The party affiliation of the perp will not surprise you.
It's always Republicans. The Party of Projection.
"The optics are bad for the party."
(select all responses that apply)
A. Gee, ya think?
B. No shit, Sherlock.
C. How can you tell?
wonder what their ruling woulda been if Mr. Landor was white?