Welcome to the United States. How recently did you move here? Which country were you living in previously? Perhaps you might start a thread so that you can learn all about the American system of government. Basically, we have three branches of government, only two of which are elected. One of the elected branches is the President of the United States while the second is the US Congress (which has two chambers).
Just so you know, you’re fucking stupid.
What’s funny is that D’Anconia posted this in the minimum wage thread.
Wow, you’re so smart. Have you schooled your fellow travelers on this board who think that Citizens United is somehow invalid?
So a clerk here can use the same argument regarding gun control, and refuse to issue weapons permits? Nice to know, thanks.
I don’t follow the issues WRT gun laws very often, but aren’t there jurisdictions that pretty much try to do that?
Who here thinks Citizens United is “invalid”? I know of many people who disagree with the decision or feel that the grounds on which the decision was made aren’t good, but I can’t recall anyone saying the Supreme Court lacked the authority to adjudicate the matter.
The only person here who seems to be arguing that the Supreme Court is invalid is you.
Well, murders is generally a state crimes, so it’s not really an issue here.
Keep trying, though. I think you’re on the verge of convincing people they shouldn’t care about this county clerk.
Is that “okay?” (Jurisdictions violating court orders and refusing to issue weapons permits.)
It’s okay for any civil official to refuse to perform his job, any time, for personal religious reasons, because “five unelected judges” have made a constitutional ruling?
What makes this different from, say, Obama refusing to deport illegal immigrants who have been residing in the U.S. since early childhood? It’s a personal religious stance, and must be respected?
I hate to invoke the slippery slope…but…where do you draw the line? If constitutional law may be interpreted by individuals, how can there be a constitution?
A poster here says that the Supreme Court justices were “assholes” when they voted in Citizens, but suddenly, the same justices are A-OK when they vote the way he politically likes.
Saying “The justices are assholes” is different than saying “The justices lack the authority to make this decision”.
It’s not OK when Obama violates the Constitution, as he did in Noel Canning,
but I haven’t heard anyone on the left complaining about it, before or since.
Is anyone advocating that Obama should ignore the Canning decision and continue issuing recess appointments in violation of the ruling?
Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law. Shouldn’t he have known better? He lost 9-0, and his own appointees voted against him.
How is that in any way relevant to gay marriage? The Court ruled against him and he is abiding by that decision, unlike Kim Davis.
Obama broke the law, and he hoped that the Court wouldn’t call him out on it. He is not some innocent bystander.
But I’m not an Obama appointee, so why should I care about it?
And now that the court ruled against him, is it your opinion that he has the right to ignore the Court and continue doing what he wants anyway?
Because that’s what Kim Davis is doing, and what you’re supporting her in doing by asserting that “five unelected judges” can’t tell people what to do.
Sorry… missed it by two.
Maybe not technically a loved one, but a very close family friend attends Morehead State.
And this very close family friend happens to be gay, right? Oh, and wants to get married while still in college. Sure.