You just contradicted yourself. If the Supreme Court ruled it a tax, it is a tax. That's how the law works in America. The Supreme Court decides, not you.

When Trump's SCOTUS panders to Conservative ideals in shady court rulings, I better not see any angry threads by you.

There is a difference between being angry about an outcome and denying that outcome.

Smegma is angry about the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the ruling is invalid. He doesn't need to approve of it for it to become law. It is law.

You will never see me do that about the Supreme Court or any other government action. My opinion doesn't overrule government authority.

Edited 1/22/2017 04:14:45

Good, because ranting about shit like that is my job around here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/french-people-translate-donald-trump-us-president-language-speech-a7539461.html

Donald Trump confuses French translators with mixed-up speeches

"Trump’s vocabulary is limited, his syntax is broken; he repeats the same phrases over and over"

“It’s as if he had thematic clouds in his head that he would pick from with no need of a logical thread to link them.”

Reminds me of his supporters.

Edited 1/22/2017 05:48:34

The Supreme Court ruled it falsely as a tax, it's a fine and the supreme court has deviated from the constitution to enable tyranny. Then again, it's done that many times before.

And it violates the constitution, so it isn't law. A fine is a fine, no matter how much a progressive judge wants it to be a tax.

You will never see me do that about the Supreme Court or any other government action. My opinion doesn't overrule government authority

Government authority in this case is illegitimate and goes against the constitution. This is arguing that, because the government says it is constitutional, I must agree it is constitutional. I don't have to, and thus, I can believe it infringes on the constitution and is therefore invalid.

If the Supreme Court rules all citizens must sacrifice their first born to reduce welfare spending, does that make it okay?

perhaps you should not be taking bait so easily.

If the Supreme Court rules all citizens must sacrifice their first born to reduce welfare spending, does that make it okay?

'Okay?' I never said anything about 'okay.' That's a moral argument. Subjective morals are irrelevant in a discussion like this. I can say carrots are not 'okay' does that mean we should outlaw carrots?

Edited 1/22/2017 20:30:37

until he gets assassinated or impeached, whenever i need a good laugh, i just have to open wikipedia:



ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states.

LOL

Subjective morals are irrelevant in a discussion like this.

Morals are not irrelevant because laws are based on morality, and often have to be questioned from a moral lens.

Anyways. Let me rephrase it since you dodge arguments like a skilled lawyer. If the Supreme Court says that slaughter camps are constitutional, does that make it constitutional? If SCOTUS says something that's obviously in violation of the constitution, that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and never argue the issue again.

don't take this bait^ wally he's going to soon ask stuff like "kikes are ruining america".

^What are you even on about? I've never once even used the word "kike" in a serious conversation.

Morals are not irrelevant

I think carrots are immoral. What now? Carrots should be illegal?

If the Supreme Court says that <insert ruling here> is constitutional, does that make it constitutional?

Yes. By definition. It's their job to interpret and apply the constitution.

that doesn't mean everyone should accept it and never argue the issue again

Here you go inserting other stuff: 'accept' and 'argue' -- you can say you don't accept gravity, that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Go ahead and say you don't accept supreme court rulings. Go ahead and argue against them. Go ahead and call them immoral. You're just derping irrelevant nonsense but do it if it makes you feel better.

Edited 1/22/2017 22:45:33

I think carrots are immoral. What now? Carrots should be illegal?

Low quality straw-man.

Yes. By definition. It's their job to interpret and apply the constitution.

That doesn't make them infallible and unquestionable. Many SCOTUS decisions have been eroded by legislative changes.

Their decision is the law of the land. Period.

This is a very sheep like mindset. If everyone thought like you we'd have never moved past slavery, segregation,and other suppression of rights, because everyone would just went "Hurr Durr Supreme Court is law of the land"

Your acceptance and arguing (and morals) are irrelevant.

So your argument is that only the written law matters and morals are irrelevant? That worked out really well in Nazi Germany. Where mass murder of innocent people was okay because the law said so and morality was "irrelevant".

Morality is necessary because without it society is capable of anything. It was a sense of morality that ended slavery, despite the law saying it was okay. It was a sense of morality that stopped segregation in the south, despite the law saying it was okay.

Low quality straw-man.

Strawman? I thought your argument was that immoral things should be illegal. Please clarify your argument.

That doesn't make them infallible and unquestionable.

It means you don't have the authority to deny the legitimacy of their decisions.

Many SCOTUS decisions have been eroded by legislative changes.

Until that happens, their decisions are law.

So your argument is that only the written law matters and morals are irrelevant?

They are irrelevant to whether or not something is the law, yes.

With each of these you seem to be trying to shift the goalposts away from what I am arguing. I am arguing that you don't get to decide what is and is not law by just saying that on a forum. The Supreme Court decides. Yes there are mechanisms to override or alter their decisions but you declaring things on a forum is not one them.

Morality is necessary

And here we are back to what you called a strawman. You're saying that things you consider immoral (Nazi Germany) should be illegal, right? If you're not saying that, I don't know what you are saying.

If things you consider immoral should be illegal then things I consider immoral should also be illegal. You evidently consider Nazi Germany to be immoral. Ok. I consider carrots to be immoral. So both should be illegal, right? That's the logical extension of what you are saying.

eklipse don't take the bait.

he swallowed it the second i got him making moral arguments

you can't defend moral arguments in discussions like this because morality is subjective.

i say breathing is immoral: breathing is now illegal

morality is subjective.

*tips fedora*

the ladder is subjective