Obama, oh hell no...

[NLXSK1]

the minister claimed discrimination, the obama administration supported them, the case went to the supreme court, as they are entitled to do.

no abuse of power there. an abuse of power would be to act in defiance of what the SCOTUS has now dictated. get it?

SCOTUS determined what they had already done was an abuse of power.

You have to break a law for the Supremes to get involved. Get it?

 

[UncleBuck]

SCOTUS determined what they had already done was an abuse of power.

You have to break a law for the Supremes to get involved. Get it?

bullshit.

where did the SCOTUS say that the obama administration or DOJ "broke a law" or "abused their power"?

taking up a case that makes it to the supreme court is not an abuse of any power or breaking of any law.

your article is extremely biased by the way.

 

[NLXSK1]

bullshit.

where did the SCOTUS say that the obama administration or DOJ "broke a law" or "abused their power"?

taking up a case that makes it to the supreme court is not an abuse of any power or breaking of any law.

your article is extremely biased by the way.

Impossible, there are no biased articles on the internet!!

Supreme court - Unanimous - Cockblocked Obama... End of story. Spin it any way you want.

 

[WillyBagseed]

Please show me where the supreme court gets to decide if something is Constitutional or not ................

 

[NLXSK1]

Please show me where the supreme court gets to decide if something is Constitutional or not ................

You are serious about this?

 

[UncleBuck]

Impossible, there are no biased articles on the internet!!

Supreme court - Unanimous - Cockblocked Obama... End of story. Spin it any way you want.

agreed. they completely cockblocked the administration's effort at stopping discriminatory practices in churches.

that does not equate to the obama administration breaking any laws or abusing any power they have.

if it did, i am sure you would be plastering it all about, as would drudge, as would fox news....so i will let your collective silence speak for itself.

celebrating a cockblock is one thing. lying about it is another.

 

[Illegal Smile]

When was the last unanimous supreme court decision?

Not one justice agreed with the admin's position, not even the two it appointed. Embarrassing.

 

[NLXSK1]

agreed. they completely cockblocked the administration's effort at stopping discriminatory practices in churches.

that does not equate to the obama administration breaking any laws or abusing any power they have.

if it did, i am sure you would be plastering it all about, as would drudge, as would fox news....so i will let your collective silence speak for itself.

celebrating a cockblock is one thing. lying about it is another.

Well lets look to the ruling then...

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”

Would you please explain to the class the meaning of the word "Infringe".

The executive branch violated the "Free Exercise" clause thus causing SCOTUS to cock block them.

Now, maybe you want to write a strongly worded letter to Judge Roberts to argue the point but it stands that the executive branch tried to INFRINGE upon the rights of the church. That means THEY BROKE THE LAW REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION. THEY VIOLATED THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

DO you get it now? How do you spin that?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/01/12/231018.htm

 

[UncleBuck]

When was the last unanimous supreme court decision?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unanimous+scotus+decisions

 

[WillyBagseed]

You are serious about this?

Yes, I am serious. Nowhere does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to determine constitutionality. If it does, please show me where............. lol


The Supreme Court itself decided it could in 1803............ what a bunch of shit......

*Congress can set rules etc... by which the Supreme court goes by , HOWEVER, Congress has never given them the power to determine either....

 

[UncleBuck]

Well lets look to the ruling then...



Would you please explain to the class the meaning of the word "Infringe".

The executive branch violated the "Free Exercise" clause thus causing SCOTUS to cock block them.

Now, maybe you want to write a strongly worded letter to Judge Roberts to argue the point but it stands that the executive branch tried to INFRINGE upon the rights of the church. That means THEY BROKE THE LAW REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION. THEY VIOLATED THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

DO you get it now? How do you spin that?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/01/12/231018.htm

no need to spin anything.

the only spin here is coming from the guy who claims that CHALLENGING a decision and APPEALING to the scotus is somehow doing something they are not allowed to do.

 

[NLXSK1]

no need to spin anything.

the only spin here is coming from the guy who claims that CHALLENGING a decision and APPEALING to the scotus is somehow doing something they are not allowed to do.

• By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause
  
  
  ​

  
  
  ​

I dont know how to make it any clearer.

Apparently you can lead an Uncle Buck to water but you cannot make him admit it is wet...

 

[UncleBuck]

I dont know how to make it any clearer.

Apparently you can lead an Uncle Buck to water but you cannot make him admit it is wet...

show me where the obama administration actually imposed that minister, rather than simply take up their case.

that is the distinction you are clearly not getting.

 

[olylifter420]

nobody can beat ub... he is right, we are wrong...

thats the way it is man... it is what it is!!!!

I dont know how to make it any clearer.

Apparently you can lead an Uncle Buck to water but you cannot make him admit it is wet...

 

[NLXSK1]

nobody can beat ub... he is right, we are wrong...

thats the way it is man... it is what it is!!!!

The peanut gallery will decide ;]

If I came here expecting to win I would likely be the most depressed dude on the internet

 

[redivider]

They were abusing their power by trying to make staffing management decisions at a church. It was an abuse of power and the entire SCOTUS supported my argument. They overreached in this case and many other cases.

here is where you fuck up...a church doesn't have a management staff, it doesn't have a chairman n shit like that... it has a CLERGY, a group of ELDERS, and the like... that is why this was a MINISTERIAL decision, not a HUMAN RESOURCE ONE...

get it, got it, good.....

you see, nobody is disagreeing with you... you are just trying to blow this shit out of proportion...

the justice department is not there to protect the church... it is there to bring these types of cases into the jurisdiction of the court system and they let the courts decide...

even if you don't agree with what the fired employee was saying you should still acknowledge her right to make her case in the eyes of the law....

SPIN SPIN SPPPIIIINNNN

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Impossible, there are no biased articles on the internet!!

Supreme court - Unanimous - Cockblocked Obama... End of story. Spin it any way you want.

this has to be some ones signature now, where the fry poster with this slogan on it with fry(futurama) squinting ahahahhahah

 

[UncleBuck]

nobody can beat ub... he is right, we are wrong...

thats the way it is man... it is what it is!!!!

i am simply correcting a statement where NLXSK said that the administration broke laws and abused powers, neither of which is true.

all they did was take the side of a fired employee and got the case to the SCOTUS, which they are allowed to do.

all i am doing is simply correcting false statements. i am often wrong and admit it readily when i am.

 

[canndo]

i am simply correcting a statement where NLXSK said that the administration broke laws and abused powers, neither of which is true.

all they did was take the side of a fired employee and got the case to the SCOTUS, which they are allowed to do.

all i am doing is simply correcting false statements. i am often wrong and admit it readily when i am.

You aren't understanding Uncle, anything that Obama does is an illegal "power grab". Anything that Obama does is going to "destroy the country", anything that Obama does is depriving us of our basic freedoms. Everything is endangering everything our country stands for and is ultimately the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[UncleBuck]

You aren't understanding Uncle, anything that Obama does is an illegal "power grab". Anything that Obama does is going to "destroy the country", anything that Obama does is depriving us of our basic freedoms. Everything is endangering everything our country stands for and is ultimately the end of civilization as we know it.

you forgot that any positive news can not be credited to obama, but any negative news MUST be attributed to obama.

for example, it was bush's efforts that got bin laden, but it is obama's fault when gas prices rise.

also, any idea that obama proposes is the worst idea ever, even if you were the one who first proposed it.