- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
- Messages
- 12,726
- Reaction score
- 11,404
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Of course it is bad law and unfortunately many of the red states are interjecting religion into legislation and it is just plain wrong.The Alabama Supreme court violated the rules surrounding the separation of church and state.
MSN
www.msn.com
The justice responsible for this travesty needs to be removed from office and disbarred.
Of course it is bad law and unfortunately many of the red states are interjecting religion into legislation and it is just plain wrong.
They are extorting and distorting religion
Which is why those states need to be subject to extreme federal oversight.
Yea but what happens when SCOTUS does the same thing?
If the statute states that life begins at conception then it follows the law. Its impacts of course are substantial.The Alabama Supreme court violated the rules surrounding the separation of church and state.
MSN
www.msn.com
The justice responsible for this travesty needs to be removed from office and disbarred.
This judgement is based on the religious beliefs of that justice.If the statute states that life begins at conception then it follows the law. Its impacts of course are substantial.
What does the statute say?This judgement is based on the religious beliefs of that justice.
That is inappropriate and is absolutely grounds for his removal.
Like communist China?Which is why those states need to be subject to extreme federal oversight.
Like communist China?
If you have your way we'll be a dictatorship.
What does the statute say?
They think it did however. This was their argument: My boldThe judge said laws need to be based in the bible. That is an open admission that he did not follow the law.
He needs to be disbarred and removed from the bench.
This Court has long held that unborn children are "children" forpurposes of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, § 6-5-391, Ala.Code 1975, a statute that allows parents of a deceased child to recoverpunitive damages for their child's death. The central question presentedin these consolidated appeals, which involve the death of embryos kept1These consolidated appeals were originally assigned to anotherJustice on this Court; they were reassigned to Justice Mitchell onDecember 15, 2023.SC-2022-0515; SC-2022-05793in a cryogenic nursery, is whether the Act contains an unwrittenexception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is, unborn childrenwho are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.Under existing black-letter law, the answer to that question is no: theWrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardlessof their location.
separation of church and state simply means not having a favored national church. Imposing Christian morals as secular law that all are mandated to follow regardless of one’s religious beliefs is not violation of the first amendment. The government can’t make you engage in religious practice or be a certain denomination, but on a moral issue like IVF or Abortion Christian values can guide what behaviors the government allows or does not allow and it’s not a violation of any right you haveThe Alabama Supreme court violated the rules surrounding the separation of church and state.
MSN
www.msn.com
The justice responsible for this travesty needs to be removed from office and disbarred.
No, IVF is not pro-life. It involves creating many lives for the purpose of destroying them once one is successfully implanted, it also makes unique human persons who are suspended in limbo for years in freezers.Watching this live on CNN right now, Alabama is fighting back.
For a party that claims to be pro-life, IVF is as pro-life as you can get!
Most folks can conceive for free.
So what?The judge said laws need to be based in the bible.
No it’s not.That is an open admission that he did not follow the law.
No he doesn’t.He needs to be disbarred and removed from the bench.
The civil rights act has basically usurped the constitution as a new constitution because it allows the government unlimited powers to make unequal things equal somehowThat's exactly what was said about the Civil Rights Act before it was passed.
It's a 1st Amendment violation'So what?
Yes, it is.No it’s not
Yes, he does. He violated the 1st Amendment and attempted to create theocracy.No he doesn’t.
separation of church and state simply means not having a favored national church. Imposing Christian morals as secular law that all are mandated to follow regardless of one’s religious beliefs is not violation of the first amendment. The government can’t make you engage in religious practice or be a certain denomination, but on a moral issue like IVF or Abortion Christian values can guide what behaviors the government allows or does not allow and it’s not a violation of any right you have
No he’s not. Even if the criminal code were entirely based on the Bible that is not forcing religious beliefs. The government can’t make you practice religion or believe in it, however they can determine acts to be bad for society and punish you for committing those actsYeah, and when a zealot makes finding and then openly says laws should be based on the bible, he is doing exactly that. He is attempting to force HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of the population.
Yes they can.This is a 1st Amendment violation.
No, his values ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be part of the decision.
No it’s not.That is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
He didn’t make his religion the law. The law already states it’s a civil fort to kill an unborn child in AlabamaHis religion is not the law
No it’s not.. By his own admission, he stated that he believed law should be made based on the bible. This is a 1st Amendment violation.
His religion ends where the law begins.
Again, this is not correct. You’re just repeating the same nonsense. No of the people who drafted the first amendment would agree with your interpretation of it. It was not intended to effect the values of the public being legislated into law, it was intended to deal with sectarian problems stemming from European countries where different churches were officially sponsored by the governmentHe is NOT allowed to legislate or rule based on his religion.
WRONG.No he’s not. Even if the criminal code were entirely based on the Bible that is not forcing religious beliefs. The government can’t make you practice religion or believe in it, however they can determine acts to be bad for society and punish you for committing those acts
Yes they can.
Yes, it is.No it’s not.
A fertilized egg is NOT a child. He made that call based on his religion.He didn’t make his religion the law. The law already states it’s a civil fort to kill an unborn child in Alabama
WRONG.No it’s not.
Again, this is not correct. You’re just repeating the same nonsense. No of the people who drafted the first amendment would agree with your interpretation of it. It was not intended to effect the values of the public being legislated into law, it was intended to deal with sectarian problems stemming from European countries where different churches were officially sponsored by the government
The first amendment doesn’t even address thisWRONG.
He is violating the 1st Amendment. He CANNOT rule by his beliefs and that is EXACTLY what he did.
It states the federal government cannot establish one as the national churchNo, they cannot. It's a 1st Amendment violation. The state cannot have a religion.
No, it doesn’t.This decision is based on his Christian beliefs and, in effect, creates a state religion.
Alabama has a state law stating a “fertilized egg” (which is in fact a child) is a child. This is a secular lawYes, it is.
A fertilized egg is NOT a child. He made that call based on his religion.
Civil liability for causing a death is not tyrannyWRONG.
It was built to prevent the state from having a religion. This was designed to prevent tyranny.
An opinion protected by the first amendmentBy ruling the way he did, by stating laws should be based on the bible,
No he didn’t.he made his religion the law.
It is not a violation of the first amendment to establish tortsThis is a first Amendment violation that needs to cost him his license and his seat.
The entire purpose of politics is to legislate moral beliefs into the lawThe right-wing IS NOT going to legislate their religious beliefs. If they don't like it, they can leave the country.
It also applies to the states. There is no state religion allowed.. federal or state.The first amendment doesn’t even address this
It states the federal government cannot establish one as the national church
Yes, it does. By making a ruling based on his religious beliefs he created a de facto state religion. He chose one religion over the rest and ruled by it. That is not appropriate, and it is an ABSOLUTE violation of the first amendment.No, it doesn’t.
That law was created by religious zealots for religious zealots. A fertilized egg IS NOT A CHILD. It is a blob cells that has not developed. The egg in question is in cryostasis and is NOT DEVELOPING.Alabama has a state law stating a “fertilized egg” (which is in fact a child) is a child. This is a secular law
Making rules based on religion is tyranny. Keep your religion out of the court room, out of government office, and to yourself.Civil liability for causing a death is not tyranny\
He is a a judge. He is NOT ALLOWED to rule by his religion. That is what he did. He showed his anti-American, pro-religious bias. He is NOT suitable to sit on the bench.An opinion protected by the first amendment
Yes, he did.No he didn’t.
When they are based on religion, yes, it is.It is not a violation of the first amendment to establish torts
The entire purpose of politics is to legislate moral beliefs into the law