Kim Davis "loves all people," her legal counsel shared

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kim-davis-...v2-JMXhX7M

I actually met Kim Davis back in 2016 at Solid Rock Apostolic Church in Morehead, KY. She was a member of the same church as my cousin. My aunt introduced me to her. She is a really nice lady. I thanked her for standing up for what's right.

Damn, I remember when there were people saying that the court wasn't going to be coming for gay marriage next after Dobbs. Those people always had smooth brains of course they are, Thomas it out in his concurrence perfectly.

They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

(01-09-2024 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Damn, I remember when there were people saying that the court wasn't going to be coming for gay marriage next after Dobbs. Those people always had smooth brains of course they are, Thomas it out in his concurrence perfectly.

We can only pray for something like that.

(01-09-2024 09:50 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

It barely went through originally, with Kennedy being the deciding vote and Roberts being STRONGLY against it and authoring the descent. Court is way more conservative now, wouldn't stun me in the least to see this happen.

(01-09-2024 10:14 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Damn, I remember when there were people saying that the court wasn't going to be coming for gay marriage next after Dobbs. Those people always had smooth brains of course they are, Thomas it out in his concurrence perfectly.

We can only pray for something like that.

We can pray for it, but the genie is out of the bottle.

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:50 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

It barely went through originally, with Kennedy being the deciding vote and Roberts being STRONGLY against it and authoring the descent. Court is way more conservative now, wouldn't stun me in the least to see this happen.

So do we dissolve all the married gay folks unions or put them all in jail?

(01-09-2024 10:14 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:26 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Damn, I remember when there were people saying that the court wasn't going to be coming for gay marriage next after Dobbs. Those people always had smooth brains of course they are, Thomas it out in his concurrence perfectly.

We can only pray for something like that.

As someone who wouldn't be impacted by this at all but wants to essentially see the Supreme Court as we know it today either completely reformed or destroyed I actually hope it happens. So go for it.

You want to see the Supreme Court destroyed???

Do you have any idea how our Constitutional Republic works? They got rid of Civics class before you went to school?

Man, I try to be nice to people and this is what it gets me.

(01-09-2024 10:31 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 09:50 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They're just trying to fire up their base with this nonsense. They aren't going to reverse that.

It barely went through originally, with Kennedy being the deciding vote and Roberts being STRONGLY against it and authoring the descent. Court is way more conservative now, wouldn't stun me in the least to see this happen.

So do we dissolve all the married gay folks unions or put them all in jail?

Send it back to the States to decide would be my guess once they make that ruling.

(01-09-2024 10:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Send it back to the States to decide would be my guess once they make that ruling.

ala Roe v Wade?

BIG difference between killing babies and gays getting married.

(01-09-2024 10:35 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You want to see the Supreme Court destroyed???

Do you have any idea how our Constitutional Republic works? They got rid of Civics class before you went to school?

Man, I try to be nice to people and this is what it gets me.

Yes I understand completely. I understand that currently there is exactly 1 "check" on the power of the Supreme Court, impeachment, that is politically impossible. I also understand there is nothing in the Constitution that outlines the number of justices that can be on the SC and I know that you can also change the constitution with enough popular support for something. I think for any changes to the court to happen it has to reach full Lochner era, has to get a lot worse before it can get better.

What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Not if there is a Republican President in charge. Also, the only people that support the prog filth are prog filth themselves. Outside of their camp of crazies, no rational minded person likes them.

Isn’t gay marriage legal in all fifty states? They passed a bill a year or two ago right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Nope, I'd be pretty happy with non-lifetime appointments and real ethics rules that applied and had teeth. Highly doubt the founders intended on having judges on the court for 40+ years and for there to basically be no rules that apply to them at all. The idea anyone qualified enough to be on the court would have lived 40 more years back in those days would have been pretty hard to imagine, and I know they thought impeachment was a real check on them that political realities have made meaningless.

(01-09-2024 12:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Nope, I'd be pretty happy with non-lifetime appointments and real ethics rules that applied and had teeth. Highly doubt the founders intended on having judges on the court for 40+ years and for there to basically be no rules that apply to them at all. The idea anyone qualified enough to be on the court would have lived 40 more years back in those days would have been pretty hard to imagine, and I know they thought impeachment was a real check on them that political realities have made meaningless.

Term limits across the board for everyone.

(01-09-2024 12:06 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Nope, I'd be pretty happy with non-lifetime appointments and real ethics rules that applied and had teeth. Highly doubt the founders intended on having judges on the court for 40+ years and for there to basically be no rules that apply to them at all. The idea anyone qualified enough to be on the court would have lived 40 more years back in those days would have been pretty hard to imagine, and I know they thought impeachment was a real check on them that political realities have made meaningless.

Term limits across the board for everyone.

Agree completely

(01-09-2024 12:06 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 12:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 11:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  What you want is complete and total power for the prog filth.

Nope, I'd be pretty happy with non-lifetime appointments and real ethics rules that applied and had teeth. Highly doubt the founders intended on having judges on the court for 40+ years and for there to basically be no rules that apply to them at all. The idea anyone qualified enough to be on the court would have lived 40 more years back in those days would have been pretty hard to imagine, and I know they thought impeachment was a real check on them that political realities have made meaningless.

Term limits across the board for everyone.

Yep, start with Congress and work your way up. You can't approve of lifetime congress critters and then complain about the Supreme Court.