Posted on 06/21/2015 10:44:20 AM PDT by Johnny Navarone
Edited on 06/21/2015 12:27:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Ah, so you fail to understand at all. Typical.
No, I don't want the right to do anything I please. What I want is the right to do whatever does not violate the rights of others. I will probably never get it. But I'll get less of it if there's a state, than if there's not. And the same is true of everyone else, including you.
"Democracy? I want nothing to do with a system which operates on the premise that my rights don't exist simply because I am outnumbered." ~ R. Lee Wrights
That is not a claim that the free market doesn't work. The free market works fine, as long as no one has a monopoly on defining what is true or what is just. Letting a private business or individual have a monopoly on deciding what it may rightfully do doesn't work, regardless of whether the monopolist is a state or a street thug. That's why the free market is superior: It denies monopoly power, and gives customers choices about which car to buy, which house to rent, which school to attend, which independent Rights Enforcement Agency to use, and which independent arbitration service to use.
If the SC rules wrongly on either of these cases, it will have jumped the shark. At that point it should be publicly ridiculed and openly defied.
They are going to be criticized no matter how they rule. That is guaranteed.
For the third time, what will you replace the state with? Who determines the rights of others? Who stops violators? If this unnamed process of yours is not based on God-given rights, what is it based on, and how does it differ from the state?
What is your actual, functional alternative, genius?
That is not a claim that the free market doesn't work.
Of course it is.
"Letting a private business regulate/police itself" is the exact opposite of the oppressive regulation and confiscatory taxation regime...which is what we have now.
AKA: A market-adverse environment.
1. Marriage is a state issue, and any ruling to the contrary lacks legitimacy.
2. Obamacare is shockingly unconstitutional. Spending money on Obamacare in a manner outside that specified in the law is also unconstitutional. Any ruling that permits Obamacare subsidies through federal exchanges lacks legitimacy.
As FedGov increasingly gives up its remaining shreds of legitimacy, the consequences will be grave. I hope America’s enemies are ready to deal with the disaster they are creating.
*****
FoxNews judge---I forgot his name---also said a few days ago that he thought the Court would agree with Obama.
This would never be accepted. The issue might seem to be a legal one but it passed that point long ago. Satan will accept nothing less than corrupting all Christian institutions. He will never rest until he has corrupted marriage and profaned the Holy altars by demanding that his corruption be performed there. A legal solution wouldn’t allow him to poke his finger in the eye of the Almighty and His people.
lawyers will decide the question, not satan
I think about this scene sometimes also when I watch the news.
Our country has fallen into the hands of people that aren’t very smart nor wise.
What is an "independent Rights Enforcement Agency"?
Please give an example.
That would be a good thing, even logical!
Go away and come back when you have some answers that acknowledge and support human beings, little foul-mouthed corporate-globalist tool who thinks he's invisible. Criticism is easy. Solutions not so much. Run a small business and get back to us someday, after you go broke and burn your poly sci degree for heat in one of your "independent rights enforcement" corporate camps.
Obammy knows roberts adopted his kids illegally.
Yes, if the SCOTUS rules that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses will force every state in the union to legalize same-sex "marriage," it will be among the most illogical decisions in SCOTUS history.
The Fourteenth Amendment was, without question, geared to preventing abuses of newly freed black slaves by state governments. One can pretty well see the logic behind extending such protections to other racial or ethnic groups, but homosexuals do not fall into those categories. Of course, the Constitution does not give the SCOTUS the power to radically alter the common law definition of the word "marriage" which has been a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. It's just the re-education (brainwashing) of the younger generations which has given political impetus to falsely presenting this as an "equal rights" issue. Contrary to "gay rights" activists, a union between two persons of the same sex should not be conflated with a heterosexual marriage between individuals of different races, nationalities, religions, etc., which the SCOTUS protected in previous rulings.
The left delights in destabilizing society by screwing up the common vocabulary, and undoubtedly we will see perverse in-your-face videos of gay "weddings" up the wazoo if the SCOTUS is foolish enough to rule the wrong way.
In NO usage does the term marriage ever signify the joining together of two “similars”
Marriage between a man and a woman....doesnt
the Marriage of a Fine Wine to a particular Food does not
the same concept holds true Architecture where we hear of a Fine Brass doorknob being married to a fine Oak Door.
across the board...marriage always requires dis-similars. IT IS THE JOINING TOGETHER...of Dis Similars
let the geniuses on the SC mull that over
Hopefully, Roberts won't knuckle under to blackmail like some here say happened regarding the earlier Obamacare case.
Even if the adopted children issue were exposed in the MSM, Roberts will almost certainly not be impeached on those charges by a Congress where both Houses are controlled by establishment Republicans. So he can probably afford to be more independent now than he was a couple of years ago.
Roberts may be subject to blackmail, but I don't think he's "gay."
Absolutely, and in quite a number of different ways.
But in a case before the Court, a plaintiff can't just claim unconstitutionality and present a list of unconstitutional provisions. That would appropriately be the subject of a law journal article. A plaintiff has to prove harm to himself from a particular provision in order to have standing to challenge its constitutionality.
But the current Obamacare case before the SCOTUS isn't really a question of constitutionality; rather it is a question of interpretation of the meaning of the insurance premium reimbursement provision in the law and whether or not it applies to the federal insurance exchange.
You really don’t think so? Do you think he might have been all those years he was single, going on vacation every year with his guy friends?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.