Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Origen

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Breaks Courtroom Silence

Recommended Posts

Staff

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-breaks-courtroom-silence-n528151

 

I guess with Scalia gone it is at last time for Thomas to speak up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

This is going to be an interesting case. I always wondered exactly how misdemeanor charges or even mental treatment could warrant the loss of Constitutional rights. Seems the government could pass such stringent requirements that no citizen would qualify to own a firearm.

 

Thomas Clarence is my most favorite Supreme Court Justice, and it sickened me how people attempted to slander him before and when after he took his seat. I thought the story of him buying someone a soda and them claiming he put a pubic hair on top of the can was humiliating and degrading.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

The Constitution says, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which word don't Democrats (who created the KKK and are behind 90% of all murders of black people today) understand?

 

On the other hand, I think the whole concept of punishment is about taking away Constitutional rights, maybe even the right to life itself. When we lock up someone in jail, which is totally constitutional, they're rightly denied gun possession. Why do they have to be confined to maintain the suspension of their right to posses weapons? It's not about stringent requirements to own a gun, it's about punishing a criminal, especially when it's a punishment that fits the crime.

 

Now, back to Thomas, who one of the only two people on the Supreme Court that respects the Constitution. His question is really about the 8th Amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment), and I absolutely agree with Thomas' question.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
It's not about stringent requirements to own a gun, it's about punishing a criminal, especially when it's a punishment that fits the crime.

 

My question is also whether it is constitutional to deprive one of the right to bear arms if they have ever been treated for a mental illness? Where's the line drawn? When I was being treated for depression, I heard many in the mental ward complaining about having to sign a piece of paper to be admitted into the hospital. The paper relinquished them of the right to bear arms, the hospital would not allow one particular man treatment unless he signed. Can anyone explain this? Since when is it a crime to have depression or other mental illnesses?

 

Care to take a stab at it Cornelius? Here's a rather interesting find: New York Disarms the ‘Mentally Ill’

Share this post


Link to post
My question is also whether it is constitutional to deprive one of the right to bear arms if they have ever been treated for a mental illness? Where's the line drawn?

 

The current Supreme Court case is not about mental illness, but about taking away a constitutional right over a small crime.

 

Do you mean while in the hospital? If it's a private hospital, shouldn't it be their right to deny service to anyone who wants to posses a gun? The hospital probably has liability concerns. But, the government shouldn't ban "mentally ill" people from possessing guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

 

The current Supreme Court case is not about mental illness, but about taking away a constitutional right over a small crime.

 

Do you mean while in the hospital? If it's a private hospital, shouldn't it be their right to deny service to anyone who wants to posses a gun? The hospital probably has liability concerns. But, the government shouldn't ban "mentally ill" people from possessing guns.

 

My point is that they seemingly can revoke gun rights from anyone they deem at risk to commit violent acts like the case before the Supreme Court. Even when that person has no record, but only a health record of mental illness. If they can do this, why is it surprising that they can impose laws based on crimes committed? This is law in Washington State:

 

Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or involuntarily “committed to any mental institution.”1 No federal law, however, requires states to report the identities of these individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which the FBI uses to perform background checks prior to firearm transfers.

 

I find that rather interesting. No law states that the identities must be reported, but you have suggested that liability may be a concern for not reporting them.

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
No law states that the identities must be reported, but you have suggested that liability may be a concern for not reporting them.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a depressed person, when recovering from depression, shooting himself. (I've heard that depressed people tend to commit suicide when they're recovering and no longer feel so helpless.) You know, the family of the deceased suing the hospital, claiming negligent and inappropriate treatment, and even that the hospital knew he was mentally ill but let him keep a weapon.... then a jury returns a multi-million dollar judgement against the hospital.

 

I'm completely against the government denying constitutional rights to innocent people based on what they might do...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Judiciary Committee Democrat Floats Perjury Probe Of Justice Brett Kavanaugh

      By Kevin Daley - Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado, a freshman member of the House Judiciary Committee, told constituents that the panel will likely investigate Justice Brett Kavanaugh for perjury. “There’s no question [Kavanaugh] committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth,” Neguse said when asked if the justice might be impeached. “I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.” A conservative opposition research group obtained and disseminated video of Neguse’s comments. The congressman was not specific as to which of Kavanaugh’s statements might rise to the level of perjury. Democrats have put forward various theories as to how Kavanaugh misled the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings: one theory, which NBC News advanced, held that he lied concerning when he first learned about the allegations of Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her at a party. In response to questions from lawmakers during his second confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh said he first learned of Ramirez’s claims from the New Yorker, the venue in which her story appeared. NBC subsequently recovered text messages revealing that the justice and his allies were discussing Ramirez’s allegations before the story’s publication, prompting charges of perjury. However, Kavanaugh told Senate investigators before the hearing that he learned Ramirez was searching for witnesses to corroborate her story well in advance the New Yorker story’s publication, thereby belying the perjury charges. The NBC report was stealth edited, and a correction was never issued. Other theories suppose that the justice lied about the contents of his high school yearbook or hid his complicity with a White House staffer who stole strategy memos from Senate Democrats during his service in the George W. Bush administration. Neither of those propositions has been substantiated. Requests for comment from the congressman’s office went unanswered. Kavanaugh has kept a low profile since joining the high court in October 2018. Though the justices often teach in law schools or speak to various professional groups when the Court is not hearing cases, Kavanaugh’s schedule of public engagements appears rather thin. Similarly, his maneuvers on the Court reflect a sense of caution: he joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal bloc to keep the Court out of controversies relating to abortion and the census, while his style at oral argument is deferential and inconspicuous. Democratic U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the new chair of the Judiciary Committee, was overheard discussing a prospective Kavanaugh impeachment at some length on board the Acela train to Washington, D.C. just days after the midterm elections. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Judiciary Committee Democrat Floats Perjury Probe Of Justice Brett Kavanaugh is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal

      By Kevin Daley - President Donald Trump proposed an immigration deal to reopen the government Saturday, which included a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Trump’s overture to congressional Democrats comes as the Supreme Court considers whether it will intervene in ongoing litigation over the president’s attempts to rescind DACA, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who came to the U.S. as children. The administration initiated DACA’s termination in September 2017. Those maneuvers were immediately challenged in federal court. A federal district judge in California ordered the government to continue administering DACA in January 2018. At that juncture, the government broke from normal judicial process and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, instead of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices rejected that appeal, returning the case to the 9th Circuit with orders to resolve the case quickly. Over eight months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, so the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court in November 2018 and asked the justices to take their case. The government’s petition has been pending before the Court since that time. The 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding the district court’s order three days later. Challenges to the president’s attempts to rescind DACA are also pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. In the short term, Trump might command a stronger negotiating position if the justices intervene in the DACA cases, since the government can reasonably expect to prevail in the high court. Therefore, Democrats might wish to strike a deal with Trump that includes DACA protections, lest the Supreme Court affirm the president’s power to end the program unilaterally. That the justices have not yet acted on the petition does not bode well for the administration, however. The high court hears arguments from October until April and disposes of its cases by June. As a general matter, the docket for each term is finalized in the middle of January. If the Court intended to grant the administration’s request and hear the case, it likely would have done so by now. As such, the prospect of Supreme Court action on DACA looks dim as of this writing. The high court will next announce action in pending cases on Tuesday. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Trump Floats Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Justice Department Is Hiring Lawyers To Take On Property Seizures For Trump Border Wall

      By Jason Hopkins - In a strong indication that the Trump administration is preparing for the next phase of the immigration battle, the Department of Justice is now hiring lawyers to handle border wall litigation in South Texas. The two attorney positions — which are advertised to pay between $53,062 and $138,790 — are to be based in the southern Texas towns of Brownsville and McAllen. Preferred candidates are to have “at least four (4) years of civil litigation experience in litigation of land condemnation cases, oil and gas disputes, and real estate matters,” according to the posting on USAJobs, adding that knowledge of the Spanish language “is helpful, but not required.” The jobs were first posted in December, with the deadline for applications closing on March 5. The attorneys will likely be tasked with eminent domain and other property seizure legalities — issues that will undoubtedly arise if President Donald Trump is able to move forward with construction of a wall on the southern border. The federal government is on the 28th day of a partial shutdown — the longest in U.S. history. Trump is demanding Congress send him a budget that includes $5.7 billion in funding for 200-plus miles of new and replacement barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, but liberal lawmakers have stood sharply opposed to the proposal. The budget standoff between the president and Democratic leaders has reached a fever pitch. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday told reporters she would delay the State of the Union address, an annual speech by the president that is held in the House of Representatives, because of the government shutdown. Trump responded the following day by cancelling Pelosi’s planned trip to Europe and the Middle East. Trump’s letter reportedly came minutes before the speaker and Democratic staffers were to board a bus for the trip. Trump, however, told Pelosi she was free to fly commercial if she so chooses. Should the White House ultimately prevail in the border wall fight, the administration would then have to negotiate with property owners who reside on the wall’s path. While the law typically favors the government in eminent domain cases, property owners could possibly drag out court cases for over a decade. “Eminent domain is something that has to be used, usually you would say for anything that’s long, like a road, like a pipeline or like a wall or a fence,” Trump told reporters earlier in January in the Rose Garden. He made clear that the White House would wield eminent domain authority only if landowners refuse to sell the land needed for the wall, and he pledged that all landholders would receive fair prices. “I think it’s a fair process. I think it’s a process that’s very necessary, but I think it’s fair,” he explained. “A lot of times we’ll make a deal, and I would say a good percentage of time we’re making deals.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Justice Department Is Hiring Lawyers To Take On Property Seizures For Trump Border Wall is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood

      By Kevin Daley - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds. The decision is also significant for its harsh criticism of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.  The case will now return to a federal trial court, where Planned Parenthood will have another chance to secure an injunction against Texas.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds Thursday, while stridently criticizing the abortion-provider for its rhetoric and medical practices. “Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling. The case arose after a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards codified in federal law and state regulations. Texas terminated its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood shortly thereafter, citing infractions documented in the videos. In turn, Planned Parenthood asked a federal court to restore its Medicaid funding. Thursday’s ruling — which related to a jurisdictional issue in that case — is especially striking for its numerous rebukes of Planned Parenthood. Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, delivered the opinion. Perhaps the most noteworthy of the decision’s reprimands is a graphic depiction of post-abortion fetal remains taken from a CMP video on the fourth page of the opinion. A small arm is visible in the picture. Texas cited the manner in which Planned Parenthood disposes of fetal remains as one reason for terminating their Medicaid eligibility. In another instance, the decision all but accuses Planned Parenthood of breaking federal law banning partial birth abortions. The ruling highlights a CMP video in which an administrator called Dr. Tram Nguyen said doctors at one facility could evacuate an intact fetus — thereby breaking federal law — provided they sign a form that they did not “intend” to do so. Such procedures allow researchers to recover organs like the thymus or the liver. Later in the opinion, the panel chides Planned Parenthood for failing to engage with Nguyen’s comments in court filings. “The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance of the discussions contained in the videos is curiously silent,” the decision reads. Planned Parenthood has denied that they intentionally alter abortion procedures for such purposes. The panel also dismissed Planned Parenthood’s claim that the CMP videos were “deceptively edited,” a soundbite that redounded across the press after the tapes first appeared. “The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” a footnote in the decision reads. “And [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.” Finally the panel accused the judiciary of politicking on abortion cases. Ordinarily, providers like Planned Parenthood must challenge Medicaid termination decisions in an administrative forum and state court before seeking a federal court’s intervention. By allowing Planned Parenthood to skip directly to federal court — as the trial court did here — the 5th Circuit said that judges are engaging in ideological favoritism. “Had [Texas] terminated the Medicaid provider agreements of any other type of health care provider, the incongruity of allowing that provider to use patient litigation proxies to avoid administrative review and [reach] federal court would be obvious and unacceptable,” the ruling reads. The decision comes as pro-life activists gather in Washington in advance of Friday’s March for Life. The question before the 5th Circuit did not relate to abortion directly: after Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, the abortion-provider sued, claiming the federal Medicaid statute allowed them to do so. A federal district judge agreed, allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The 5th Circuit had to decide whether that decision was correct. The federal appeals courts are divided over the answer to that question. Though the Supreme Court generally intervenes when the circuits disagree over the same question of law, the justices denied review in a related controversy from Kansas in December 2018, drawing a vigorous dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch which accused the Court of playing politics. In that instance, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the Court’s liberal bloc, effectively preserving a pro-Planned Parenthood decision in the lower court. The 5th Circuit’s Thursday decision concluded that they are bound by precedent to find that Planned Parenthood can proceed with its lawsuit in federal court under the Medicaid statute, though Jones wrote a concurrence to her own majority opinion urging the full 5th Circuit to revisit that question. However, the 5th Circuit gave Texas a partial victory, finding that the trial court assessed Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction under the wrong standard. The panel lifted the injunction, and ordered the lower court judge to reconsider Planned Parenthood’s request under a different standard which is more accommodating of Texas. As such, the state has a much better chance of prevailing when the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings. Texas awards approximately $3.4 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates through Medicaid annually. The decision notes this is a “smidgen” of the revenue Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates generate each year, which runs over $57 million. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] A Federal Appeals Court Just Took A Big Swing At Planned Parenthood is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA

      By Kevin Daley - The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on Friday. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Those moves were immediately challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the government to continue administering the program on Jan. 9, 2018. The Department of Justice broke with normal judicial procedure and asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, bypassing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high court rejected that petition in February 2018, but ordered the 9th Circuit to “proceed expeditiously” in its review of Alsup’s decision. After months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department returned to the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, 2018 and again asked the justices to take their case. Three days later on Nov. 8, the 9th Circuit issued a decision upholding Alsup’s order. “More than ten months later, the court of appeals’ judgment is here and the Court is presented the opportunity it anticipated in February,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco — the government’s Supreme Court lawyer — wrote in court papers. “The Court should now grant At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on Friday. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 foreign nationals who arrived in the U.S. as children. The Trump administration took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Those moves were immediately challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the government to continue administering the program on Jan. 9, 2018. The Department of Justice broke with normal judicial procedure and asked the Supreme Court to… Review Overview 0 User Rating: Be the first one ! and resolve this important dispute this term.” Other challenges to DACA’s repeal are pending before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C. The Trump administration urged the justices to take its case because the 9th Circuit’s ruling conflicts with a prior decision of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. Like DACA, DAPA is an Obama-era policy which provides benefits to illegal aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. When multiple appeals courts disagree over the same question of federal law, the high court is much more likely to step in. The government also said that it will be forced to abide widespread disregard for immigration laws if the Supreme Court rejects its petition. “The district court’s nationwide injunction commands the government to preserve a policy that affirmatively sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by 700,00 aliens who have no lawful immigration status and no right to the policy’s continuation,” Francisco told the justices in court filings. “Absent this Court’s intervention, the government will be required to maintain the policy nationwide for years after DHS and the Attorney General determined that it should end.” Some Republican lawmakers have floated the prospect of enacting DACA protections as part of a grand bargain to implement comprehensive immigration reform and reopen the government. Vice President Mike Pence said that the White House will not consider a deal which includes DACA until the Supreme Court decides on its legality during a gaggle with reporters on Thursday afternoon. The justices could announce a decision to take the case as soon as Friday afternoon. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] At Trump’s Request, The Supreme Court May Soon Decide On Dismantling DACA is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.