Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

[Into the Night]

1) Prohibiting abridging the "freedom of speech" has the same meaning as "free speech."

No, it doesn't. You are free to speak your opinion, and so are others, but they can charge for it. Entertainers typically charge for it. The speech is not free. The New York Times charges for it. It's not free either. This is yet another example of you attempting to change the Constitution.

If speech includes creative artistic expression that is an interpretation of "free speech" since the Constitution does not specifically state that.

No. Creative artistic expression often charges for that speech (music, website, etc). It is not free.

2) If nothing in the Constitution allows affirmative action to used in military academies then your claim that the recent set of decisions were correct appear to be incorrect since the AA case exempted the military academies.

That portion of the ruling is incorrect and unconstitutional since that would violate the 14th Amendment, $1.

Basically put, the government (including the college and universities it operates and funds) has no authority to implement racism to prevent racism. Yes...that includes the military.

 

[Flash]

NO IT DOESN'T. The Supreme Court has NO authority to interpret or change the Constitution. They have no power to decide if their own decision conforms to the Constitution. It MUST conform to the Constitution or the decision is void as unconstitutional.

But it does and has for many years. Without judicial review there is no check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches or the states.

First the court said race could be used as one factor in college admissions. Now, it says race cannot be used (except at military academies). Those were two different interpretations given the Constitution by two different courts. They decided which interpretation "conformed" to the Constitution.

If you think the incorporation process never happened you are far behind in your constitutional law.

 

[Into the Night]

Then quit contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting anything. You are mindlessly repeating questions that have already been answered.

 

[Into the Night]

To be clear, the Independent Legislature case, if the SC was to give the Federalist Society their wet dream, would also have stripped the SC of all future power over the process.

What 'process'? Please specify this 'process'. Void argument fallacy.

So the Federalist Society was asking the SC to do something which is the opposite of what they have been doing lately which is consolidating massive power to the Court over Congress and the Executive Branch,

Perhaps you should read Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

and they were not simply going to give that up to State Legislatures,

Perhaps you should read the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution of the United States and Articles II, V, and VI.

and rule "No Court, including the State or Federal Supreme Court can intervene if they see things they think threaten their power'.

Paradox. Irrational statement.

So i would not applaud the SC as any protector of democracy on that one.

What democracy? Why would the Supreme Court protect a democracy?

 

[Flash]

I am not contradicting anything. You are mindlessly repeating questions that have already been answered.

But your answers are always incorrect.

 

[Diesel]

Good to see you you finally admit the truth about yourself.



All of which exists in this country more than in any other on Earth.

You really should look up Biden's Cabinet and senior staff.

Unfortunately, greedy, selfish, self-centered people like you are never satisfied.

You keep looking for and inventing new reasons to be dissatisfied and unhappy.

Always another reason to bitch, complain, cry victim and demand more.



Projection^^^.

We've already determined that you're not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. Fuck off already.

 

[Flash]

That portion of the ruling is incorrect and unconstitutional since that would violate the 14th Amendment, $1.

Basically put, the government (including the college and universities it operates and funds) has no authority to implement racism to prevent racism. Yes...that includes the military.

False authority fallacy. You think you can declare the decision was "incorrect" but the Supreme Court cannot. You've got it backwards.

And, you completely misunderstand the concept of free speech. It does not have anything to do with having to pay to hear that speech but that the people are free to express their views without government restriction.

 

[Into the Night]

But it does

NO IT DOESN'T! The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution.

and has for many years.

It never did.

Without judicial review there is no check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches or the states.

Neither the President nor Congress has authority to change or interpret the Constitution either.
The States have that authority, and ONLY the States.

The States created the Constitution. The States are the only ones that can interpret or change the Constitution. The States can even destroy the Constitution, and thus dissolve the federal government.

First the court said race could be used as one factor in college admissions.

That is unconstitutional.

Now, it says race cannot be used

That conforms to the constitution.

(except at military academies).

That portion is unconstitutional.

Those were two different interpretations given the Constitution by two different courts.

The Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution. They MUST conform to it or their decision can be held null and void.

They decided which interpretation "conformed" to the Constitution.

They do not have that authority.

If you think the incorporation process never happened you are far behind in your constitutional law.

The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. There is no 'incorporation process'.

 

[Into the Night]

The SC recognizes that PoC are the main recruits of the military and necessary recruits to fight our wars and they don't want white middle class and upper class kids having to fill that role and never have.

So suddenly they can see a reason why 'targeting by race' to make sure the ranks are filled is a fine thing to do. We need that "diversity" in the military.

They just think diversity is not needed in University and ergo in corporate senior positions. They want to slow the gains PoC and women have been making in those areas, to extend the advantage time white men have enjoyed since the countries inception.

Almost all of these rulings are targeted at that. MAGA folk hate that America is changing as PoC and Women get more and more of a voice and a seat at the table and so too does SCOTUS. They just are taking different paths to try and slow the progress. To maintain the advantages.

Affirmative action in the military is unconstitutional.
It does not agree with Trump supporters either.

The military is currently an all volunteer organization.

 

[Into the Night]

But your answers are always incorrect.

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

False authority fallacy. You think you can declare the decision was "incorrect" but the Supreme Court cannot. You've got it backwards.

Fallacy fallacy. False authority fallacy. Inversion fallacy. ANY decision made by ANY court that does not conform to the Constitution is unconstitutional and can be held null and void.

And, you completely misunderstand the concept of free speech.

I completely understand the concept of free speech. I also completely understand that a lot of speech isn't free. You have to pay for it.

It does not have anything to do with having to pay to hear that speech

Yes it does. If you have to pay for it, it ain't free, dummy.

but that the people are free to express their views without government restriction.

That is freedom of speech, something entirely different.

 

[Flash]

Neither the President nor Congress has authority to change or interpret the Constitution either. The States have that authority, and ONLY the States.

The States created the Constitution. The States are the only ones that can interpret or change the Constitution. The States can even destroy the Constitution, and thus dissolve the federal government.

Completely false. Read Article V to see what the Constitution really says about changes.

 

[Diesel]

But it does and has for many years. Without judicial review there is no check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches or the states.

First the court said race could be used as one factor in college admissions. Now, it says race cannot be used (except at military academies). Those were two different interpretations given the Constitution by two different courts. They decided which interpretation "conformed" to the Constitution.

If you think the incorporation process never happened you are far behind in your constitutional law.

When someone says the SC has "NO authority" to interpret the Constitution I know I'm talking to someone who never passed a 6th grade civics lesson. He'll just keeping repeating himself even though you very clearly explained how different courts can (and do) interpret the exact same Constitution in different ways.

 

[Nomad]

We've already determined that you're not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. Fuck off already.

Who's this "we" you're talking about?

You and the effeminate tranny weirdo freaks you sashay and lisp around with?

 

[Diesel]

Who's this "we" you're talking about?

You and the effeminate tranny weirdo freaks you sashay and lisp around with?

Oh, let me fix that. I've already determined that you're not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. Fuck off already.

 

[Into the Night]

Completely false. Read Article V to see what the Constitution really says about changes.

It says what I am saying. ONLY THE STATES have the authority to change the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Into the Night]

When someone says the SC has "NO authority" to interpret the Constitution I know I'm talking to someone who never passed a 6th grade civics lesson. He'll just keeping repeating himself even though you very clearly explained how different courts can (and do) interpret the exact same Constitution in different ways.

The Constitution is not a 'civics lesson'. It is the law.
No court has authority to interpret or change the constitution.

 

[Nomad]

Oh, let me fix that. I've already determined that you're not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. Fuck off already.

Okay.

So what happens when I not only have one, but continue to express it at will?

Is there some kind of weird, gay S&M thing you all do to people who won't toe the line?

Or drink the Kool Aid?

 

[Lightbringer]

NO IT DOESN'T. The Supreme Court has NO authority to interpret or change the Constitution. They have no power to decide if their own decision conforms to the Constitution. It MUST conform to the Constitution or the decision is void as unconstitutional.

Who decides that?

 

[Flash]

It says what I am saying. ONLY THE STATES have the authority to change the Constitution.

You missed the part in Article V about Congress. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. In all 27 the amendment was proposed by a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate. 26/27 of those amendments were ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures and one by state conventions.

So, it has never been changed by the states alone but only after proposal by Congress.

You have been repeating these same lies for years with no support.
--only the states can change the Constitution
--the Supreme Court cannot interpret or change the meaning of the Constitution
--there is no incorporation process and some of the amendment have always applied to the states

Repeating the same lies does not make them true and nobody accepts any of these claims except your socks and you even lie about them.