THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Okeefenokee]

Please tell me where the words meany poopy head were ever used?

In the half dozen quotes I gave you, fucking poopy head.

So in other words, the actual ruling which I linked to, which shows that the court ruled that the state overstepped their bounds isn’t good enough for you?

Instead, you are saying the court said that they are ruling on the bakers behalf because they were mean because third party websites said so.

Remind me again, when I showed direct quotes of why the judges ruled the way they did, wasn’t it good enough?

It seems to me that you need to re-evaluate where you get your info from.

For if you can’t take the time to read a 50 page ruling, perhaps it’s best that you actual admit that SCOTUS rules on facts, and the reason that they sided with the Baker is because the state court and other entities didn’t.

It's literally in the ruling that you posted. Literally.

[Okeefenokee]

Plus Trump is a con artist whose goal is always personal power and profit.

If he wanted profit he would not have ran for POTUS.

If you want to talk about being in it for nothing but personal power, say the name Barrack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.

Should I be happy that someone who doesn't even pretend to care about American values is in the white house? At least Obama taught constitutional law, which means he had some feeling for core American values. Even Nixon showed more respect.

You live in a different reality.

[The Conservative]

In the half dozen quotes I gave you, fucking poopy head.

So in other words, the actual ruling which I linked to, which shows that the court ruled that the state overstepped their bounds isn’t good enough for you?

Instead, you are saying the court said that they are ruling on the bakers behalf because they were mean because third party websites said so.

Remind me again, when I showed direct quotes of why the judges ruled the way they did, wasn’t it good enough?

It seems to me that you need to re-evaluate where you get your info from.

For if you can’t take the time to read a 50 page ruling, perhaps it’s best that you actual admit that SCOTUS rules on facts, and the reason that they sided with the Baker is because the state court and other entities didn’t.

It's literally in the ruling that you posted. Literally.

The ruling states that the state overstepped their bounds and didn't follow the letter of the law. I stated that SCOTUS itself deals in logic, and not emotion. How am I wrong here?

[Haumana]

At least Obama taught constitutional law, which means he had some feeling for core American values.

[MilSpecs]

At least Obama taught constitutional law, which means he had some feeling for core American values.

Does the Constitution not lay out our core values?

[Haumana]

At least Obama taught constitutional law, which means he had some feeling for core American values.

Does the Constitution not lay out our core values?

You posing revisionist history that Obama was a strict Constitutionalist is what I find hilarious.

http://archive.is/bklCo


https://www.google.com/search?ei=SDs0W4 ... gsLUa0t_ig

[Speaker to Animals]

Is this real life? LMFAO!

[MilSpecs]

Does the Constitution not lay out our core values?

You posing revisionist history that Obama was a strict Constitutionalist is what I find hilarious.

http://archive.is/bklCo


https://www.google.com/search?ei=SDs0W4 ... gsLUa0t_ig

I didn't say or imply that, not even remotely. What I said is that he had some feeling for the Constitution as the bedrock of American values. People rarely teach things they don't believe at all.

[Okeefenokee]

So in other words, the actual ruling which I linked to, which shows that the court ruled that the state overstepped their bounds isn’t good enough for you?

Instead, you are saying the court said that they are ruling on the bakers behalf because they were mean because third party websites said so.

Remind me again, when I showed direct quotes of why the judges ruled the way they did, wasn’t it good enough?

It seems to me that you need to re-evaluate where you get your info from.

For if you can’t take the time to read a 50 page ruling, perhaps it’s best that you actual admit that SCOTUS rules on facts, and the reason that they sided with the Baker is because the state court and other entities didn’t.

It's literally in the ruling that you posted. Literally.

The ruling states that the state overstepped their bounds and didn't follow the letter of the law. I stated that SCOTUS itself deals in logic, and not emotion. How am I wrong here?

That is not what it said.

“a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection”

That is what it said.

[clubgop]

Does the Constitution not lay out our core values?

You posing revisionist history that Obama was a strict Constitutionalist is what I find hilarious.

http://archive.is/bklCo


https://www.google.com/search?ei=SDs0W4 ... gsLUa0t_ig

I didn't say or imply that, not even remotely. What I said is that he had some feeling for the Constitution as the bedrock of American values. People rarely teach things they don't believe at all.

They do of they wish to subvert it. Acting like we don't know about Saul Alinsky.