It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: luthier
As we clearly see here its necessary to protect minorities from religous zealots.
Amen!
The 14th amendment is FINE.
For decades, religion has been pushing and creeping its way into secular law and the justice system is having to define the separation between the two. The Church is discovering how much imposition the State is willing to accept. So, naturally, the church is NOT happy with feeling the "push back".
They want to change the Constitution now, because it doesn't allow for religious law. Sheesh!
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: dawnstar
This seems to me like going around the bushes, first the governor stated that those "clerks" that will no obey the supreme court ruling will be considered a misdemeanor as most of the clerks in the state have not problem issuing licenses.
Now they have an appeal on the 6 circuit court, sorry but if I am no mistaken once the Supreme court issue the final ruling the rest of the smaller courts will no take the issue again.
So this nothing but going around the bushes for propaganda.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar
Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar
Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.
Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: luthier
I have the feeling that it will be many that were sympathizers with this particular group that will be turning their back after this act of encouraging civil disobedience.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar
Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.
Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.
Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar
Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.
Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.
Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?
She changed her tune when she was put in jail. Thats when she decided it was ok to take her name off.
Have you been reading the articles?
Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: dawnstar
Means th e judge expanded th e injuntion,which is apparently a no no under the law.
Nope not at all..it means her lawyer like I said has to try to say there are procedural errors because she has no case. This all ends the same. She gets impeached, put in jail, or fined if she continues.
Not really. th e original complaintant got what they wanted so theres no case anymore really. All she has to do is let her subs do them from now on till her term ends. you read that article?
She changed her tune when she was put in jail. Thats when she decided it was ok to take her name off.
Have you been reading the articles?
CLick on the one DAWNSTAR posted. Thats th eone im talking about. ANd the judge himself released her after her subordinates did it. She was not needed,and as such this whole show was and is a waste of time apparently.