One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Page 1 of 11 next> last>>
May 20, 2022 20:37:28   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Alito's draft opinion is full of specious legal and historical language — but it's just religious doctrine in drag

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2022 2:16PM (EDT)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
view in app
save
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Democrats are generally disinclined to discuss religion, much less debate it.

They like to point out that Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were famously atheist, Thomas Jefferson and dozens of other high-profile people in the founding generation were deists (a close cousin to atheists and certainly not Christians), and that in two different places the Constitution explicitly rejects religion interfering with government or vice versa.

But it's time to discuss religion whether we like it or not, because it's no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire.

Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion rests on two main premises.

The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."

This right-wing canard has been around for years, and has been used to argue against pretty much ever form of modernity from integrated public schools to, more recently, same-sex marriage. It's a convenient pole around which you can twist pretty much any argument you want, because American history and tradition have been all over the map during the past roughly 240 years.

There you have it in a nutshell !

*** The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."***
There is no such right , presently.

Reply
May 20, 2022 20:55:21   #
son of witless
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Alito's draft opinion is full of specious legal and historical language — but it's just religious doctrine in drag

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2022 2:16PM (EDT)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
view in app
save
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Democrats are generally disinclined to discuss religion, much less debate it.

They like to point out that Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were famously atheist, Thomas Jefferson and dozens of other high-profile people in the founding generation were deists (a close cousin to atheists and certainly not Christians), and that in two different places the Constitution explicitly rejects religion interfering with government or vice versa.

But it's time to discuss religion whether we like it or not, because it's no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire.

Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion rests on two main premises.

The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."

This right-wing canard has been around for years, and has been used to argue against pretty much ever form of modernity from integrated public schools to, more recently, same-sex marriage. It's a convenient pole around which you can twist pretty much any argument you want, because American history and tradition have been all over the map during the past roughly 240 years.

There you have it in a nutshell !

*** The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."***
There is no such right , presently.
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to... (show quote)


A poorly written piece. It makes a point condemning Alito's alleged religious doctrine, but doesn't present quoted language that shows a religious tone at all.

Reply
May 20, 2022 20:56:36   #
Liberty Tree
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Alito's draft opinion is full of specious legal and historical language — but it's just religious doctrine in drag

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2022 2:16PM (EDT)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
view in app
save
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Democrats are generally disinclined to discuss religion, much less debate it.

They like to point out that Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were famously atheist, Thomas Jefferson and dozens of other high-profile people in the founding generation were deists (a close cousin to atheists and certainly not Christians), and that in two different places the Constitution explicitly rejects religion interfering with government or vice versa.

But it's time to discuss religion whether we like it or not, because it's no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire.

Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion rests on two main premises.

The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."

This right-wing canard has been around for years, and has been used to argue against pretty much ever form of modernity from integrated public schools to, more recently, same-sex marriage. It's a convenient pole around which you can twist pretty much any argument you want, because American history and tradition have been all over the map during the past roughly 240 years.

There you have it in a nutshell !

*** The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."***
There is no such right , presently.
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to... (show quote)


It is following the Constutution, something liberal judges have not done for decades.

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2022 20:59:53   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho
 
son of witless wrote:
A poorly written piece. It makes a point condemning Alito's alleged religious doctrine, but doesn't present quoted language that shows a religious tone at all.



One only needs to examine the speeches and letters our founding fathers wrote or spoke to know their intentions and God was an integral part of all government

Reply
May 20, 2022 20:59:58   #
Bevvy
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to alter secular law?
Alito's draft opinion is full of specious legal and historical language — but it's just religious doctrine in drag

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED MAY 10, 2022 2:16PM (EDT)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
An activist with The Center for Popular Democracy Action holds a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as they block an intersection during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
view in app
save
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Democrats are generally disinclined to discuss religion, much less debate it.

They like to point out that Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were famously atheist, Thomas Jefferson and dozens of other high-profile people in the founding generation were deists (a close cousin to atheists and certainly not Christians), and that in two different places the Constitution explicitly rejects religion interfering with government or vice versa.

But it's time to discuss religion whether we like it or not, because it's no longer knocking on our door: Sam Alito just sent it into the house with a no-knock warrant and stun grenades that threaten to catch the place on fire.

Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion rests on two main premises.

The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."

This right-wing canard has been around for years, and has been used to argue against pretty much ever form of modernity from integrated public schools to, more recently, same-sex marriage. It's a convenient pole around which you can twist pretty much any argument you want, because American history and tradition have been all over the map during the past roughly 240 years.

There you have it in a nutshell !

*** The first is that the Supreme Court has no business recognizing a "right" that isn't rooted in the nation's "history and tradition."***
There is no such right , presently.
Why is the Supreme Court using religious belief to... (show quote)


18 U.S. Code 1507 States: Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a
building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such
building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:01:08   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
It is following the Constutution, something liberal judges have not done for decades.


Did you not read it ?

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:02:15   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
Bevvy wrote:
18 U.S. Code 1507 States: Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a
building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such
building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S. Code 1507 States: Whoever, with the intent... (show quote)


That covers insurrections.

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2022 21:03:39   #
son of witless
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
One only needs to examine the speeches and letters our founding fathers wrote or spoke to know their intentions and God was an integral part of all government


I agree, but this is about Alito and abortion. Alito has not been shown invoking God in this ruling. If he did, I want to see the language.

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:06:42   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
One only needs to examine the speeches and letters our founding fathers wrote or spoke to know their intentions and God was an integral part of all government


God was not an integral part of all government.
The founders were not Christians,
They were deists.they had a belief in an all knowing God , but that was it.
As I understand that it is a half step away from Atheists.
Religion was intentionally kept out of government.
For the very reason you are trying to inflict it today.

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:10:27   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho
 
Milosia2 wrote:
God was not an integral part of all government.
The founders were not Christians,
They were deists.they had a belief in an all knowing God , but that was it.
As I understand that it is a half step away from Atheists.
Religion was intentionally kept out of government.
For the very reason you are trying to inflict it today.


Major were Christians and desist, learn your history

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:12:15   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
son of witless wrote:
A poorly written piece. It makes a point condemning Alito's alleged religious doctrine, but doesn't present quoted language that shows a religious tone at all.


You did get the gist of it , right ?
As poorly written as it was.
Too funny !!!
Poorly written !!!!!!

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2022 21:12:22   #
Liberty Tree
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Did you not read it ?


Usual Harmann lies and BS.One example is that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist. He made several calls for prayer at conventions and made the statement that the longer he lived the more he was convinced that God governed in the lives of men. Quit being a Hartmann worshiper and do some real research.

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:13:11   #
kemmer
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
One only needs to examine the speeches and letters our founding fathers wrote or spoke to know their intentions and God was an integral part of all government

Of course many of our Founding Fathers were slave owners. And women were considered the property of their husbands and/or fathers—and of course they couldn’t vote for anything.

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:16:21   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
Major were Christians and desist, learn your history


The founders were not .
And they recognized that having religion involved in government would be a terrible thing. For you.
Because, slowly it would take away the power they have given to you.
Along with uncontrolled corporations, they were also against, because they also would be capable of taking power away from the People.
But youz fools just can’t stop giving it all away ‘
Good job !!!!!
Now you’re nobody !
Enjoy your new rank in America.

Reply
May 20, 2022 21:19:46   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Usual Harmann lies and BS.One example is that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist. He made several calls for prayer at conventions and made the statement that the longer he lived the more he was convinced that God governed in the lives of men. Quit being a Hartmann worshiper and do some real research.


Deists are nearly Atheists.
And your perception of the God he was referring to might not be the one you incorrectly assume it was.
Atheists do believe in God.
Or they wouldn’t be atheists .
Thank you for your astute guidance but , I can do better on my own.

Hartmann does not lie. He goes out of his way to assure you of the truth.
You can question him anytime , he has a daily show where he can be reached and has said, anyone from the right trying to spin what he says gets front of the talk line privileges.
Call him out any day !
Just calling him a liar is so shallow and uneducated.
Call him and air your grievances with him.
You get first in line phone privileges.

Reply
Page 1 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.