If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ACLU)   Federal judge rules the State of Oklahoma can't repeal every single treaty ratified by the Senate within Oklahoma borders and cannot make a prohibition for one religion but not another   (aclu.org) divider line 147
    More: Obvious, Senate, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, sharia law, international laws, constitutional amendments  
•       •       •

4198 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Aug 2013 at 7:46 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-16 07:21:00 AM
Good.
 
2013-08-16 07:27:13 AM
This could have been a question on are you smarter than a 5the grader.
 
2013-08-16 07:53:06 AM
Ratified treaties have the force of US law.
US law can be ruled unconstitutional by Supremes.
Q: Has any ratified treaty or portion of a treaty been ruled unconstitutional by Supremes?

/too lazy to google for myself.
 
2013-08-16 07:53:53 AM
Cue Oklahoma Republican complaints about "activist federal judges".
 
2013-08-16 07:56:39 AM
Gee, I wonder what religion they were trying to prohibit?
 
2013-08-16 07:56:51 AM
I suspect the Venn diagram of "Idiots who voted for these laws" and "Idiots who ran as a 'small government constitutional conservative'" bears a suspicious resemblance to the flag of Japan.
 
2013-08-16 07:57:16 AM
This makes so much sense I'm sure some people will complain. Loudly.
 
2013-08-16 07:58:10 AM
Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.
 
2013-08-16 08:05:04 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


Oh, don't worry.  I'm sure if you happen to turn on Fox News today you'll see that the ACLU is still a christian-bashing entity.  After all, they just helped to put the entire state of Oklahoma under Sharia law.
 
2013-08-16 08:05:46 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


[Citation needed]
 
2013-08-16 08:06:04 AM
Oh, really?

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-16 08:07:51 AM
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Seeing how the SCOTUS has reduced itself to taking bribe money from big business so big business can make obscene amounts more, I don't blame anyone--particularly idiots with an ideology--for telling the the court to fark off.

You get back what you put out. Shiat out opinions that are bought and paid for with corporate profits and you'll get shiat thrown back at you.
 
2013-08-16 08:09:48 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


Wow, that's stupid.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-16 08:10:12 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


My problem with the ACLU is that they on the "corporate free speech" kick.  If they really believed in individual rights they would be fighting "speech equals money".
 
2013-08-16 08:11:15 AM
Just imagine how much fun it would have been to be a merchant dealing in international goods.  So long CISG and any choice of law other than American.
 
2013-08-16 08:11:21 AM
I know some Okies, and they're proud people. It doesn't matter what some judge says, they're not going to start speaking French, not in Tulsa at least.
 
2013-08-16 08:14:40 AM
Now the derp brigades will holler about 'Librul ACTIVIST JUDGES!' and their candidates will ask for money to defeat same.
 
2013-08-16 08:17:10 AM
Wonder when they will update those FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD E-mails about OK. :-p
 
2013-08-16 08:17:35 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


Are you for real?
 
2013-08-16 08:27:09 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


I know facts don's sway this type of derper but here it is anyway http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
 
2013-08-16 08:27:22 AM
So the Muslim Brotherhood got to the judicial branch too.
 
2013-08-16 08:29:35 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Seeing how the SCOTUS has reduced itself to taking bribe money from big business so big business can make obscene amounts more, I don't blame anyone--particularly idiots with an ideology--for telling the the court to fark off.

You get back what you put out. Shiat out opinions that are bought and paid for with corporate profits and you'll get shiat thrown back at you.


WTF?

Federal court != SCOTUS.
 
2013-08-16 08:31:25 AM
DAMN YOU OBAMA!
 
2013-08-16 08:33:00 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Seeing how the SCOTUS has reduced itself to taking bribe money from big business so big business can make obscene amounts more, I don't blame anyone--particularly idiots with an ideology--for telling the the court to fark off.

You get back what you put out. Shiat out opinions that are bought and paid for with corporate profits and you'll get shiat thrown back at you.


LOL.  You really believe this, don't you?

But "your" guys don't accept bribes, amirite?
 
2013-08-16 08:33:09 AM
It's sad that this even needed to go before a judge.
 
2013-08-16 08:36:17 AM

FLMountainMan: DAMN YOU OBAMA!


I really need a Khan graphic with this.

SilentStrider: It's sad that this even needed to go before a judge.


I agree.  I mean, I'm all for the right to have your grievance heard in a court of law.  And I'm all for states trying to push the law in a certain direction through the courts.  But when state legislatures pass clearly unconstitutional laws just to appease the fringes of their political parties, I really think it's a big waste of capital.
 
2013-08-16 08:37:11 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


Seeing something stupid and stereotypical on the internet doesn't bother me.

Seeing an individual saying a dangerously stereotypical thing so casually... like it isn't even a question... that bothers me.
 
2013-08-16 08:39:01 AM

FLMountainMan: FLMountainMan: DAMN YOU OBAMA!

I really need a Khan graphic with this.

SilentStrider: It's sad that this even needed to go before a judge.

I agree.  I mean, I'm all for the right to have your grievance heard in a court of law.  And I'm all for states trying to push the law in a certain direction through the courts.  But when state legislatures pass clearly unconstitutional laws just to appease the fringes of their political parties, I really think it's a big waste of capital.


You misspelled "laser-like focus on jobs."
 
2013-08-16 08:40:23 AM
I wonder if fox news will howl and scream about this or not?
 
2013-08-16 08:40:48 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


Agreed. For once, I'm on board with the ACLU.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-16 08:42:06 AM

FLMountainMan: But "your" guys don't accept bribes, amirite?


Who are "my guys"?

People that accept bribes are by definition not "my guys".  People that are corporatist are by definition not "my guys" either.
 
2013-08-16 08:43:18 AM

FLMountainMan: FLMountainMan: DAMN YOU OBAMA!

I really need a Khan graphic with this.

SilentStrider: It's sad that this even needed to go before a judge.

I agree.  I mean, I'm all for the right to have your grievance heard in a court of law.  And I'm all for states trying to push the law in a certain direction through the courts.  But when state legislatures pass clearly unconstitutional laws just to appease the fringes of their political parties, I really think it's a big waste of capital.


I didnt RTFA, but i would say there is an almost certainty that a whole lot of money will be wasted on at least one appeal, if not 2. I am torn on if i would want to see the Supreme Court grant certiorari or not. One it would be nice to nip this trend in the bud before all the derp'ers start trying this. But on the other hand it would likely be a waste of their time.
 
2013-08-16 08:43:45 AM

rumpelstiltskin: I know some Okies, and they're proud people. It doesn't matter what some judge says, they're not going to start speaking French, not in Tulsa at least.


In ten years we'll all be wearing burkas and speaking French and it won't even seem weird.

Oh wait, that's stupid.
 
2013-08-16 08:45:07 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.


I think both sides might have reached a tad far tho. The Christian mega churches usually go way far over the line of acceptable (and legal) behavior and the ACLU has to go balls out to try and bring them back down to eath.
 
2013-08-16 08:49:45 AM

FLMountainMan: FLMountainMan: DAMN YOU OBAMA!

I really need a Khan graphic with this.

SilentStrider: It's sad that this even needed to go before a judge.

I agree.  I mean, I'm all for the right to have your grievance heard in a court of law.  And I'm all for states trying to push the law in a certain direction through the courts.  But when state legislatures pass clearly unconstitutional laws just to appease the fringes of their political parties, I really think it's a big waste of capital.


This particular monstrosity was actually a ballot initiative that passed 70.08% - 29.92%.
 
2013-08-16 08:51:36 AM

Xythero: rumpelstiltskin: I know some Okies, and they're proud people. It doesn't matter what some judge says, they're not going to start speaking French, not in Tulsa at least.

In ten years we'll all be wearing burkas and speaking French and it won't even seem weird.

Oh wait, that's stupid.


I know right.

I mean, France banned the burka, or at full face covering, when taking government photos for licenses and passports and such.

Now, instead if you mean wearing a hijab or a abaya, that would be a totally reasonable scenario.
 
2013-08-16 08:55:12 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I suspect the Venn diagram of "Idiots who voted for these laws" and "Idiots who ran as a 'small government constitutional conservative'" bears a suspicious resemblance to the flag of Japan.


And after this ruling, their heads asploding resemble the Japanese man-o'-war flag.
 
2013-08-16 08:56:17 AM
And this in a state that has entire nations with their own Federal treaties with the US government and different religions *within it's own borders.*

Yep... That's going to make perfect sense in Oklahoma. I could understand them being stupid about say... The international Law of The Sea treaties, but... You'd think certain concepts were close to home for Oklahomans.
 
2013-08-16 08:59:03 AM
The "We have no concept of free will, everything is either mandatory or banned" crowd strikes again.

1. Pass a law stating that rejecting Christianity is illegal
2. Law is swiftly struck down
3. Use the striking down of the law as proof that the government wants everyone to reject Christianity and they're the mostest oppressed group evar.
4. ...?
5. Profit and repeat
 
2013-08-16 08:59:31 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Ratified treaties have the force of US law.


No, ratified treaties, along with the constitution, represent "the supreme law of the land." That's a bit different from just being another law passed by congress.
 
2013-08-16 09:00:19 AM
UN's gunna take mah guns!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-16 09:00:25 AM

TheMysteriousStranger: This particular monstrosity was actually a ballot initiative that passed 70.08% - 29.92%.


the only thing that is putting the US in more jeopardy than stupid law makers is stupid constituencies.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-16 09:02:50 AM
anti-Sharia Law amendments/laws is the only thing that is more pure unmitigated bullshiat than 40 anti-obamacare votes.

I swear... what the fark is going on?
 
2013-08-16 09:03:36 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: bigsteve3OOO: Its nice to see the ACLU back on track and fighting the good fight again.  During the 90s and 00s they were jujst a christian bashing entity.

Agreed. For once, I'm on board with the ACLU.


For once? I think you'd be surprised at the cases the ACLU has taken up over the years. Christians are just the biggest whiners, they don't like it when their perceived right to discriminate and indoctrinate is ruled against.
 
2013-08-16 09:06:22 AM

d23: anti-Sharia Law amendments/laws is the only thing that is more pure unmitigated bullshiat than 40 anti-obamacare votes.

I swear... what the fark is going on?


Idiocracy was more than a movie, it was a forecast that is coming true.
 
2013-08-16 09:06:33 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Ratified treaties have the force of US law.
US law can be ruled unconstitutional by Supremes.
Q: Has any ratified treaty or portion of a treaty been ruled unconstitutional by Supremes?

/too lazy to google for myself.


Reid v. Covert established that the US Constitution maintains supremacy over any treaty, however, it did not find the treaty in question itself unconstitutional. So, sort of, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
 
2013-08-16 09:07:19 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I suspect the Venn diagram of "Idiots who voted for these laws" and "Idiots who ran as a 'small government constitutional conservative'" bears a suspicious resemblance to the flag of Japan.


There it is.
 
2013-08-16 09:12:01 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Ratified treaties have the force of US law.

No, ratified treaties, along with the constitution, represent "the supreme law of the land." That's a bit different from just being another law passed by congress.



Actually....

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It elevates the constitution, federal law, and treaties above anything the states do. However, it doesn't elevate treaties above federal law or vice versa.
 
2013-08-16 09:12:55 AM

d23: anti-Sharia Law amendments/laws is the only thing that is more pure unmitigated bullshiat than 40 anti-obamacare votes.

I swear... what the fark is going on?


Someone (or rather, many someones) is afraid...  VERY afraid... of something/some group they don't understand.
 
2013-08-16 09:15:25 AM
I am all for states rights, but these idiotic states who forget that they are subject to the Federal laws of the land scare the crap outta me. This is like civics 101 folks
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report