Roe is dead

[Mr. Deez]

I'm not pro court packing. But, it was 9 based on there being 9 federal districts. Now there are twelve. I wouldn't do it because Mitch McConnell would figure out a way to add three 28 year old jurists from a QAnon registry.

The number isn't the issue. In a vacuum, nobody cares how many justices there are, and if our justices actually acted like judges rather than like policymakers, I wouldn't care if the Court was expanded. The issue is the motive. If you expand the Court primarily to reverse its judicial philosophy, it's basically the end of the line for the Court. Nobody will take it seriously again, and they shouldn't.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

OK long post, but you guys waded into theology so you asked for it...

It's one thing to use the Top Ten as a moral guide, or to benefit from the wisdom of Proverbs or the relative poetry of Psalms. It's another thing to cling to the minutia of Leviticus.

There is a SENSE in which Bubba is correct here - but there's more to it than that.

It is actually true that Christians are NOT under the law of Moses OR the 10 Commandments. (Hear me out!!) The 10 Commandments are the central moral framework on which the entire law of Moses was given. But here's the thing:

14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”
Ex 31:14–17 (Also see Deut. 5:12-15)

That's God speaking through Moses to to Israel, the nation, God's chosen people at the time. The Sabbath is specifically given as a part of God's covenant with Israel - it was never and has never been bound on the Gentiles. (In fact Paul talks about this in 1 Cor. 2:

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

That goes for the rest of the law - it was given to Israel as a nation. That stuff about not eating shellfish? Not applicable to Christians. The stuff that the atheist loves to point out about mixing fibers in garments, all those commands that we think are weird (but actually have a purpose in teaching lessons to Israel as well as to us today)... none of those apply to the Gentiles, which is (I'm assuming) most of us.

So Bubba says "WOOO! Gay sex is OK because the law doesn't apply to us!" (OK maybe he's not that enthusiastic about it...) But there's a problem. Just because the law of Moses was given to Israel only doesn't mean that God just invented sins on Mount Sinai that He never held humanity accountable for in the past. In fact, Israel was being sent into Canaan in part to punish those nations who had continuously violated God's moral law on all sorts of things - including sodomy.

Le 18:22–29
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.

Are Christians "under the 10 Commandments?" No. But that doesn't mean they are not under law. And just as Gentiles would have been guilty of murder even if they weren't bound by the 10 Commandments back then, it's still true today. It's like saying that since I'm not bound by Mexico's law on murder, that means it's OK for me to murder. We get that law doesn't work that way - laws overlap all the time, and as it happens, every other command of the 10 commandments is reiterated and elaborated on under Christ.

I think labeling sexual preference that has been around for centuries as damning is akin to damning someone for eating the wrong thing.

But you'd be wrong, because Jesus does it.

Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Mt 19:1–6.

"Wait a second, Jesus! That part in Genesis was written like 2,000 years ago! You can't seriously still think that's valid?"

Yes... because that's God's command and it doesn't come with an expiration date. It is God's plan for man dating back to the creation, and it's still in force. Just because you don't think you should be bound by something that was in effect thousands of years ago doesn't mean God has somehow changed His mind on the subject. If it was a sin then, it's a sin now - and we know that homosexuality was sinful in God's eyes even before the law of Moses was put into place - and as someone has pointed out, it is reiterated as sinful under Christ.

I figure the philosophy put forth by the Carpenter is more sound and it is more like a guide for living.

Where do you think Paul got his teaching?

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ - Ga 1:11–12.

And guess who affirmed that? Peter, one of the 12 who was with Jesus, who was also an apostle.

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2 Pe 3:15–16.

The modern concept that Paul "took over the church" when he was converted is propagated so people can ignore his teachings. But they came from Jesus just as Peter's and John's. And what does Jesus say about listening to his apostles?

20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” - Jn 13:20.

Think for a second about the attitude that is manifested in listening to one of Jesus' apostles - whom he sent out specifically to teach the Gospel that he had revealed to them - and saying "That's not good enough! I have to hear Jesus say it himself or it's not good!" Jesus taught that is an outright rejection of his teaching as well as that of the apostles.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

The number isn't the issue. In a vacuum, nobody cares how many justices there are, and if our justices actually acted like judges rather than like policymakers, I wouldn't care if the Court was expanded. The issue is the motive. If you expand the Court primarily to reverse its judicial philosophy, it's basically the end of the line for the Court. Nobody will take it seriously again, and they shouldn't.

How about we propose this....

"Hey Joe, we'll let you expand the court as long as YOU say that the POTUS elected in 2024 is the first POTUS to get to put anyone on the expanded court. "

2024 gets to put two on
2028 gets to put two on

Let's see how quick they back down from an expansion proposal as soon they have to let someone else get the first picks.

 

[OUBubba]

The number isn't the issue. In a vacuum, nobody cares how many justices there are, and if our justices actually acted like judges rather than like policymakers, I wouldn't care if the Court was expanded. The issue is the motive. If you expand the Court primarily to reverse its judicial philosophy, it's basically the end of the line for the Court. Nobody will take it seriously again, and they shouldn't.

Should anyone take it seriously now? I mean Ginni Thomas is texting the White House Chief of Staff various QAnon theories (much like those espoused by AC previously) on how to avert the will of the people.

I found this a fun read: Newly unearthed footage shows Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas discussing her spiritual struggles after leaving a cult

Do you find it ironic that Thomas feels like we should look into gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc. but stops short of mixed racial marriages. Interesting.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

And, to ascribe that as a sin is wrong in the Tao of Bubba.

3 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. - 2 Ti 3:1–5.

The Bible was cobbled together by men and then voted on.

No it wasn't. Christians had accepted the books of the NT as cannon long before it was "voted on."

Things were excluded for any number of reasons - some valid, some not.

Which things were excluded for invalid reasons?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Do you find it ironic that Thomas feels like we should look into gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc. but stops short of mixed racial marriages.

Not even a tiny bit.

 

[guy4321]

I'm not pro court packing. But, it was 9 based on there being 9 federal districts. Now there are twelve. I wouldn't do it because Mitch McConnell would figure out a way to add three 28 year old jurists from a QAnon registry.

An even number of justices would be bad. What does a 6-6 ruling mean?

 

[theiioftx]

Why does one party constantly try to get around the constitution while the other simply tries to follow it?

 

[mchammer]

Why does one party constantly try to get around the constitution while the other simply tries to follow it?

Their constitution is whatever feels good, do it.

 

[mchammer]

 

[mb227]

An even number of justices would be bad. What does a 6-6 ruling mean?

A riveting game of roshambo on the steps of the SCOTUS...

 

[Monahorns]

Are Christians "under the 10 Commandments?" No. But that doesn't mean they are not under law.

Prodigal. Christians are to follow natural law as that is the name for God's created order, the life He intended for humans. Natural law isn't something churches talk about anymore, but it was a common concept for over a thousand years until the last century or so.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Should anyone take it seriously now? I mean Ginni Thomas is texting the White House Chief of Staff various QAnon theories (much like those espoused by AC previously) on how to avert the will of the people.

I found this a fun read: Newly unearthed footage shows Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas discussing her spiritual struggles after leaving a cult

Ginni Thomas isn't on the Court. Do we know what every justice's spouse is texting to people? Her husband believes in the rule of law more than anyone else on the Court. That's my main concern.

Do you find it ironic that Thomas feels like we should look into gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc. but stops short of mixed racial marriages. Interesting.

Coach, did you actually read the concurrence, or are you just relying on a Zoom call with Jeffrey Toobin? This is what he actually says.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

He's calling for the doctrine to be overruled. He's not saying the ultimate results should change on the underlying issues. In the case of gay marriage, the equal protection argument could still be raised, and that has more merit than the SDP argument ever had.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

That is far too nuanced for twittiots to even begin to contemplate. I fear social media will be the death of reasoned debate in this country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

How about we propose this....

"Hey Joe, we'll let you expand the court as long as YOU say that the POTUS elected in 2024 is the first POTUS to get to put anyone on the expanded court. "

2024 gets to put two on
2028 gets to put two on

Let's see how quick they back down from an expansion proposal as soon they have to let someone else get the first picks.

They would take that deal. Right now, they are in the minority. So long as the conservative justices stick even largely together, they lose, which means that for the first time since the New Deal, the law generally applies to them. The margin doesn't matter. Under this proposal, they would at least have a chance.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Failure to follow those rules is sinful. Murder, theft, honoring parents, adultery, the Sabbath, no other God's, graven images, etc

Coach, do you see how illogical this is? You just got finished telling me that the in OT was replaced. Why would these acts be sinful?

We all sin each and every day. I think I commit sin when I'm an ******* in this forum. I commit said sin too often according to @Dionysus.

I don't think you're an *******. In fact, you're one of my favorite people here. I think you're a well-meaning guy, who struggles with the same temptation we all struggle with and that Adam and Eve struggled with in the Garden of Eden. Adan and Eve weren't tempted by fruit. That was just the vehicle by which they relented to the temptation. The real temptation was the prospect of going their own way and deciding for themselves what's right and what's wrong - basically being their own god with respect to morality. The difference between you and me isn't the instinct or the temptation. It's submission. When something you believe conflicts with the Bible, you assume there's something wrong with the Bible and will try to do logical gymnastics to reach the conclusion you want. That's how you say something is sinful that came from a part of the Bible you just said had been replaced.

When something I believe conflicts with the Bible, I assume there's something wrong with me and ask God to show me the way to truth. The same applies to church. Many people choose a church based on how much they agree with the church, so that they'll always be comfortable with what comes from the pulpit. I choose based on how much the church agrees with the Bible and expect to sometimes be uncomfortable with what comes from the pulpit. That discomfort isn't bad. It's good. It's how I become a better man than I was before.

guess I live in a world where I've seen people from pre-pubescent times display what was going to be their sexuality without knowing they were doing it. And, to ascribe that as a sin is wrong in the Tao of Bubba.

I see that. It's a manifestation of what I mentioned above. Your knowledge (or what you believe to be your knowledge) of the nature of sexuality is defining what you think is sin. The possibility that you could be wrong or that you are missing key information isn't on the menu.

I simply think if those who are against homosexuals marrying want it to be so sacred we need to work on getting that divorce rate moving down from 50%.

You're deploying this as a weapon to intimidate those who oppose gay marriage, but most of them would agree with you. I'm not anti-divorce per se, but I think Jesus was correct when he said it's a product of hardened hearts. And obviously, it's often terrible for children.

The Bible was cobbled together by men and then voted on. Things were excluded for any number of reasons - some valid, some not.

Monahorns and Prodigal Horn have already addressed this point, but either way, even if this was true, it would be hard for you to logically reconcile the parts of the Bible you do deem as holy.

If I can now eat pork, shave, etc. I'm not sure how that's different than being attracted to a man and forming a loving partnership.

You do know there is a biblical and scriptural basis for why we can eat pork, right (just as there's a biblical and scriputural basis for why practicing Jews still don't)? That's the big difference.

 

[guy4321]

I don't think you're an *******. In fact, you're one of my favorite people here. I think you're a well-meaning guy, who struggles with the same temptation we all struggle with and that Adam and Eve struggled with in the Garden of Eden.

Mine too. Having @OUBubba here helps discussion. Losing him would have us argue on things the rest of us agree upon.

 

[OUBubba]

A riveting game of roshambo on the steps of the SCOTUS...

That's how I got the master bedroom when I had two roomates in grad school.

Actually, you'd just have the Chief Justice exempt from voting except in ties (in the event that someone recused themselves).

 

[OUBubba]

Coach, do you see how illogical this is? You just got finished telling me that the in OT was replaced. Why would these acts be sinful?



I don't think you're an *******. In fact, you're one of my favorite people here. I think you're a well-meaning guy, who struggles with the same temptation we all struggle with and that Adam and Eve struggled with in the Garden of Eden. Adan and Eve weren't tempted by fruit. That was just the vehicle by which they relented to the temptation. The real temptation was the prospect of going their own way and deciding for themselves what's right and what's wrong - basically being their own god with respect to morality. The difference between you and me isn't the instinct or the temptation. It's submission. When something you believe conflicts with the Bible, you assume there's something wrong with the Bible and will try to do logical gymnastics to reach the conclusion you want. That's how you say something is sinful that came from a part of the Bible you just said had been replaced.

When something I believe conflicts with the Bible, I assume there's something wrong with me and ask God to show me the way to truth. The same applies to church. Many people choose a church based on how much they agree with the church, so that they'll always be comfortable with what comes from the pulpit. I choose based on how much the church agrees with the Bible and expect to sometimes be uncomfortable with what comes from the pulpit. That discomfort isn't bad. It's good. It's how I become a better man than I was before.



I see that. It's a manifestation of what I mentioned above. Your knowledge (or what you believe to be your knowledge) of the nature of sexuality is defining what you think is sin. The possibility that you could be wrong or that you are missing key information isn't on the menu.



You're deploying this as a weapon to intimidate those who oppose gay marriage, but most of them would agree with you. I'm not anti-divorce per se, but I think Jesus was correct when he said it's a product of hardened hearts. And obviously, it's often terrible for children.



Monahorns and Prodigal Horn have already addressed this point, but either way, even if this was true, it would be hard for you to logically reconcile the parts of the Bible you do deem as holy.



You do know there is a biblical and scriptural basis for why we can eat pork, right (just as there's a biblical and scriputural basis for why practicing Jews still don't)? That's the big difference.

I was "First Baptist" in my youth. I still recall the horror at about 12-13 and learning that I could go to hell for sins that I had only thought about. I've been a Methodist since the Methodist pastor in town visited my grandmother on her death bed. My father was impressed with his low key "witness" and I became Methodist at about 15. I've never shopped for another denomination as it fits me. My wife grew up "hard shell Baptist" and her rebellion against her mother was to become a Catholic at 23. Methodist was a great settling point for that yo-yo theological diet.

The Torah is the foundation to the New Testament. I was loose with the language when I said "replaced". I can get that way. I guess I would say that Proverbs, Psalms, etc. are great resources but they're not "Gospel". I don't get mad at God for playing devil went down to Georgia with Job's entire family anymore because I view it as more of a big parable. I hate the KJV to use on a daily basis. That said, I love the poetry of the 23rd Psalm in the KJV only. I want more Beatitudes in our world. Each of us has a personal relationship with our Creator.

Those smart guys are right that I used Dan Brown terminology. I just find it odd that there are so many apocryphal/gnostic/etc. writings. They are canon for some Christian denominations and they are not for others. Were the decisions of what to include/exclude made by non humans? Did Henry VIII not start the Church of England to chase having a male heir? Any writing that makes someone's individual relationship with a Creator stronger is good.

A small part of my ancestors were Mvskoke people who settled on the Creek's in southern Georgia and Alabama. They had no Bible. They had a philosophy that was not dissimilar to some of those we follow from Christ. There's a God shaped hole in our hearts. Humans fill it with many things. During my life I've filled it with beer, golf, Braum's brownie fudge sundae, my kid's sports, etc. I need to fill it with the proper stuff.

 

[OUBubba]

Ginni Thomas isn't on the Court. Do we know what every justice's spouse is texting to people? Her husband believes in the rule of law more than anyone else on the Court. That's my main concern.



Coach, did you actually read the concurrence, or are you just relying on a Zoom call with Jeffrey Toobin? This is what he actually says.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

He's calling for the doctrine to be overruled. He's not saying the ultimate results should change on the underlying issues. In the case of gay marriage, the equal protection argument could still be raised, and that has more merit than the SDP argument ever had.

He's a hack. His wife was communicating with any number of people. Her communications were in those included when the Court ruled on Jan. 19th allow the committee access. Thomas was the lone dissent. He should recuse on anything to do with the 1/6/22 issues.

 

[horninchicago]

He's a hack. His wife was communicating with any number of people. Her communications were in those included when the Court ruled on Jan. 19th allow the committee access. Thomas was the lone dissent. He should recuse on anything to do with the 1/6/22 issues.

You seem to have more respect for black George Floyd than black Clarence Thomas or any other black (R) politician or judge.

I'll get my popcorn out while you try to prove me wrong.

And, I don't think you're an ******* either. The world needs Bubbas.

 

[horninchicago]

I cheers you and you poop me? Come on, now, Bubbs.

 

[OUBubba]

You seem to have more respect for black George Floyd than black Clarence Thomas or any other black (R) politician or judge.

I'll get my popcorn out while you try to prove me wrong.

And, I don't think you're an ******* either. The world needs Bubbas.

George Floyd was a criminal who needed a justice system to adjudicate his crimes not a cop to murder him. Thomas is a smart man but a political animal who has wife who may have previously posted here under the screen name AC. She was in a cult in the 80's and was texting the White House Chief of Staff about ships offshore of Guantanamo Bay for the "Biden Crime Family" and ballot fraud co-conspirators. She's the biggest problem the Court has right now.

The poop was for fun.

 

[horninchicago]

George Floyd was a criminal who needed a justice system to adjudicate his crimes not a cop to murder him. Thomas is a smart man but a political animal who has wife who may have previously posted here under the screen name AC. She was in a cult in the 80's and was texting the White House Chief of Staff about ships offshore of Guantanamo Bay for the "Biden Crime Family" and ballot fraud co-conspirators. She's the biggest problem the Court has right now.

The poop was for fun.

Yes, but if any black person was all those things you say about Thomas but had (D) and/or liberal ideals, you would be fine with it.

Yeah, I know, thus my hilarious reply.

I'm getting more popcorn.

 

[Chop]

14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”
Ex 31:14–17 (Also see Deut. 5:12-15)

Y'all do realize that the Sabbath is Saturday--not Sunday...

(just sayin')

 

[Mr. Deez]

He's a hack. His wife was communicating with any number of people. Her communications were in those included when the Court ruled on Jan. 19th allow the committee access. Thomas was the lone dissent. He should recuse on anything to do with the 1/6/22 issues.

I can acknowledge that he should recuse on Jan. 6 cases. However, if forced to choose between a judge who fails to recuse on one case and a judge who doesn't believe in the rule of law in general, I'll choose the former, because he's far less dangerous.

 

[OUBubba]

I can acknowledge that he should recuse on Jan. 6 cases. However, if forced to choose between a judge who fails to recuse on one case and a judge who doesn't believe in the rule of law in general, I'll choose the former, because he's far less dangerous.

That's fair.

 

[guy4321]

That's how I got the master bedroom when I had two roomates in grad school.

Actually, you'd just have the Chief Justice exempt from voting except in ties (in the event that someone recused themselves).

Funny on the grad part.

Not sure any Chief Justice would like to lose his or her vote on most issues.

 

[OUBubba]

Funny on the grad part.

Not sure any Chief Justice would like to lose his or her vote on most issues.

It was ironic because I was the one that didn't care if I got the master. The other two did.

Well, I'm not advocating for court packing. I don't disagree with you.

 

[theiioftx]

That's how I got the master bedroom when I had two roomates in grad school.

Actually, you'd just have the Chief Justice exempt from voting except in ties (in the event that someone recused themselves).

You do know that master bedroom is racist these days?