First of all, some of the posts here about me have been incredibly insulting and unfair. You've turned a simple issues of me thinking that the Supreme Court could do alot better of a job and turned it into a partisan and personal issue when I never wanted it to be that.
I'm not upset that they ruled against what I liked in one case, I'm upset because a number of things.
1. That it takes forever to get rulings anymore and it's absolutely absurd. There is no reason a court case should take a month on a fantasy government forum. There's three people on the SC and these cases shouldn't take more than a couple weeks to deal with at most. Arguments are usually clear-cut and simple, and there is no need to complicate a fantasy political forum endlessly.
Seriously, you guys took an entire month to decide whether or not presidential pardons were allowed or not. How could it possibly take that long to decide this? Other court cases have been similar, with PS routinely pressuring you guys to give your ruling over the GM issue when he was pressing it some months back. There is absolutely no excuse for this.
2. You have no been very "present" on the court. In fact, it seems like Spade runs the court despite the fact you're the Chief Justice! You two never seem to disagree, and you always end up looking like Spade's legal sidekick. It gives the impression that you don't put alot of time into things and you just sign onto Spades work for whatever reason.
3. Yes, the ruling about "gay treatment" organizations. I disliked this ruling very much, in fact, I found it disgusting and terrifying. But I am not threatening to file articles of impeachment because I didn't like a ruling, that would be absurd. Hell, I want the President to have the power to pardon individuals, and I even helped Bgwah form what arguments he made in that case. If this was about rulings, I would not be complaining, because I got the ruling I wanted there, dismissing his case!
But that is not what this is about. This is about the fact that the ruling was riddled with horrifying precedent. This is not my opinion, it is what you, again, signed onto. Buried into the legalese was this:
First, many religions, entities and individuals, including parents, continue to believe that homosexuality is an aberrant practice and use ex-gay institutions in an attempt to eliminate such thoughts. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this view, it is without question that this belief is justifiably founded in a reasonable historical tradition. Therefore, the Act’s punishment of “attendance” essentially forbids the parents from practicing the tenets of their religion. Furthermore, if the Court allowed lawmakers to pass laws which forbade “attendance” at ex-gay institutions, similar logic could undoubtedly be used to pass laws to restrict the speech and assembly rights of those who feel that homosexuality is an aberrant practice. We will not go down that road.
The ruling also entertains whether homosexuality is a
medical disorder or not.
In short, the ruling opened a very scary can of worms, where religious traditions are untouchable if the Senate tried to do anything, or protect it's citizens from dangerous behavior. As Ebowed said, would Jehovah's Witnesses now have the power to refuse blood transfusions for the children, effectively killing them, on the basis of religious objections? According to this ruling, yes, they can.
And
that's what I'm upset about, not the ruling itself.
As for everyone else here, shame on you for not giving the pro-impeachment folk a chance to speak out opinion on the matter, and anyone who tried to make this a personal or partisan issue disgusts me. This is not a time for people to be nicey-nicey and overlook faults on the basis of personal affection nor is it the time for you to hate the idea of impeachment on the basis of who's pushing for it.
I thought most of you here were objective enough to do that, or above it, but apparently not.
