Next level retard reached here folks
Does anybody actually agree with this?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
cael
Veteran XX
i love it when u maga tards double down on stupid
the us supreme court oversees the federal court system which implements federal law
the oregon state supreme court oversees the oregon state court system which implements state law
these are 2 different court systems with 2 different sets of laws
something that is illegal under federal law, is not necessarily illegal under state law and vice versa
this case is about oregon state law where they have been found guilty
the supreme court is not going to rule on oregon state law and the outcome of the federal case is not going to change anything for this case in state court
the us supreme court oversees the federal court system which implements federal law
the oregon state supreme court oversees the oregon state court system which implements state law
these are 2 different court systems with 2 different sets of laws
something that is illegal under federal law, is not necessarily illegal under state law and vice versa
this case is about oregon state law where they have been found guilty
the supreme court is not going to rule on oregon state law and the outcome of the federal case is not going to change anything for this case in state court
Oh yeah he's totally right. That's why the SCOTUS is deciding on a state ruling as we speak lmao... newsflash retards: the state can't trample on your constitutional rights.
Ugh. Duh. Big picture, boys. Big picture.
Now we're gonna argue semantics I guess...when all else fails?
This issue isn't resolved, and it's not black and white. And it's not clear cut. Sorry buddy. Top court has yet to decide.
or perhaps a $500 fine would be sufficient, rather than a $135k award
look @ all these constitutional scholars
The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
lmagayo
The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
lmagayo
Impossible. SCOTUS has no bearing on states. States can do whatever they want.
I think the SCOTUS will rule differently.
If the top opposing arguments are discrimination v. religious freedom, religion would have to win out. IMHO. The cakemakers didn't harm anyone. The couple could have just gone to any of dozens of other establishments. But NOOOOOOO. They had to be whiny bitches.
If the top opposing arguments are discrimination v. religious freedom, religion would have to win out. IMHO. The cakemakers didn't harm anyone. The couple could have just gone to any of dozens of other establishments. But NOOOOOOO. They had to be whiny bitches.
So would you be ok with the cake makers hanging a sign in their window that says 'We don't serve niggers or fags'?
Because it's the same thing.
I was under the impression we got past this 70 years ago.