Agnostic.com

17 21

What will this so called Conservative Court do if a case on creationism appears on their docket?

[pandasthumb.org]

Lorajay 9 July 6
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

17 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

They aren't hypocrites. They honestly believe in a world that's completely different from what's described in their magic book. Their community is their deity. They worship each other.

5

They will violate their oaths again.

3

SCROTUS has become a laughing stock (but not so funny). I wonder how the sane members feel about being a part of this self-serving majority? Maybe as they go to more and more extremes the ABA will step in.

Do the supremes have a chance of being in a job once the president who puts them there is judged to be a treator?

@dalefvictor Sadly, I would not be surprised if they found a way to make such a scenario unconstitutional.

7

Bullies really enjoy throwing their weight around. Given the chance to do it with a ripe creationism case, these schoolyard thugs will take it, no question about it.

Know your enemy .... ALITO cited witch burner HALE 8 times ...these gangsters are brainwashing women and gun nuts for breeding more soldiers and rapists like Thomas & rapist Kavenaugh ... all 6 pretend their LIEs are scientific and rooted in common law... even RBG AFFIRMED vatican "admiralty""law" in Cuomo v Seneca Nation.... Sotomayor is praising rapist Thomas like RBG praised SCALIA.... this "collegiality" is code for fascist capitalist extreme wealth....you watch too much tv .... read these criminal theocrats citings....mostly rethuglican judges overturn state creationist laws since 1928 without exception.... they do not want to be made to look foolish like Wm Jennings Bryan by Atheist Clarence Darrow

@GreenAtheist So do you think this bunch is going to affirm the right of creationists to teach their crap or not? I couldn't tell. I think they'd jump at the chance, just because they can. And it's not how much TV you watch, it's WHAT you watch. 😉

@zeuser read the cases not fake news..... every state that banned science for creation crap has been struck down by rethuglicans ....these vatican gangsters will increase funding to religious schools but not force public schools to be religious

@GreenAtheist Ok, I can understand that response.

5

I can't keep an optimistic outlook about what they might do. At this point, with this court, I am just going to expect the worst, and if the worst doesn't happen, then it will be a pleasant surprise.

6

These six christian nationalists are hell bent on turning us into a theocracy. They are exactly like the Taliban. 😕

True the TALIBAN raped many boys at will and these 6 vatican gangsters of the US Sup Ct are validating the rapes of Thomas against Anita Hill and rapist Kavenaugh who almost murdered Christine Blasey suffocating her stopping her SCREAMS OF RAPE while Judge&Brett tore at her clothing with their drunken hands

4

SCOTUS will treat creationism exactly like science and stuff creationism down our throats. 🤮

3

Let's see how that issue Evolves.

There is a Missing Link between the rationalization of the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself. Were Darwin alive today, he would describe our judiciary as Survival of the Fatuous.

The problem lies in the Original Sin of how the justices are chosen, a process that shuts out the more democratic House of Representatives from having a say.

4

I'm sure that "teach the controversy" would be very appealing to them.

6

They already voted for prayer in school, so I don't see why they'd balk at some equal time for intelligent design...

2

The 6 vatican gangsters US Sup Ct will not contradict catholic "scientists" who pretend evolution is how geebush geehobah ghostholes does his miracles

2

I would have to have more details before making a prediction.

You live in this shit hole country, how many more details you need!? 🤷🏻♂️

@Buck
[A] It's not a shit-hole country. It's a good country with some serious problems.
[B] I don't even know what "a case on creationism" means.
[C] I don't get all worked up about shit that hasn't even happened, and may not ever happen.

When was the last time the Supreme Court heard a case on creationism?

In Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the Supreme Court held that a Louisiana law mandating instruction in “creation science” whenever evolution was taught in public schools violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

I don't think they would even hear another such case. Do you see a massive grassroots movement, anything comparable to the anti-abortion movement, in favor of teaching creationism? No.
What compelling argument could he put forward to make the Court hear such a case? I can't think of one.

@Flyingsaucesir Interesting in all that gibberish not one mention is made of the 6 far right wing bible thumping nut jobs on the Supreme Court.
Whatever, sorry I commented…carry on.
And it is, and always has been a shit hole country for everyone who isn’t a white heterosexual christian, fact. 😉

@Buck @Buck Rachel Maddow is a multi-millionaire, and she's not heterosexual. Michael Jordan is a multi-millionaire, and he's not white; Jerry Seinfeld is a multi-millionaire, and he's not Christian. Ask any of them what they think of this country.

The 6 "conservatives" on the Court are not nut jobs; they are intelligent and educated individuals. I have to admit that, even though I disagree vehemently with some of their rulings. Four of them have committed serious ethical breaches. Thomas should have recused himself from the White House documents case involving his wife. Given the very believable testimony of Anita Hill, his nomination arguably should never have been confirmed. Coney-Barret, Kavenaugh, and Gorsuch all prevaricated in their confirmation hearings, misleading the Judiciary Committee into thinking that they respect stare decisis more than they actually do. Kavenaugh also has a problem similar to that of Thomas. I found Ms. Blasey-Ford very credible. It's obvious that right-wing ideology is now driving SCOTUS decisions. But it would be a mistake to underestimate these people. They are very canny operators. It will be a challenge, going forward, to argue successfully for certain liberal causes. But not impossible. The question of a right to abortion has been kicked back to the states. That is not the end of the world. It means people will have to get off their asses and vote for their preference. It could actually result in a major shift in the balance of political power. Overturning Roe could very well blow up in Republicans' faces. As for expanding concealed carry, I am ambivalent on that. Criminals don't care about the law; they are already carrying. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry legally levels the playing field. If I had my druthers, no one would carry. But that's not the world we live in. As for public money going to religious schools, I think it's a horrible idea. But the Maine ruling is actually rather limited. It says that if the state gives money to private schools, it has to give money to ALL private schools, religious and non-religious alike. If the people of Maine don't want to fund religious schools, they can simply stop giving money to private schools. (I don't see why private schools should receive public money anyway. Do you?) Finally, the last big ruling this term involved the EPA's authority to regulate CO2. I think this is the worst decision of all, given that climate change is an existential threat to millions of species including our own. And combating global warming is something that will require collective action in a rapidly closing window of opportunity. On this issue we should already be on a war footing. We should have already nationalized the entire fossil fuel industry and be winding it down while pouring all of its profits into green energy alternatives. As it is, we are left as individuals to try and reduce our carbon footprints as best we can. And there is a lot we can do as individuals. Personally, I have sworn off flying. I recycle every scrap of paper. I have reduced my driving down to less than half the national average. I drive a compact car. I take short showers, and skip as many as possible. I have reduced my consumption of meat, and all but eliminated beef from my diet. I use only LED lights in my house, and don't leave lights on where I don't need them. Solar panels and an electric car are coming in the not too distant future.

5

I think we already know the answer to that question, now don’t we!?😃

5

Remember, the catholic justices aren't Jesuit, we teach evolution and science, catholics, they are the new breed evangelical catholics happy to fuck over and fuck up everyone and everything.

10

Nothing good.

I do not recognize their authority.
Resist

7

They're just the type to rule on it too, but not in the rational educated sense.
More in the Christian Nationalist start a fight kind of sense.

8

There are groups out there already embracing the mantra of American Taliban and promising to bring about xtion laws for ALL to follow.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:675522
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.