+54

I wonder if those judges will later author a book titled Gymnastic of The Judiciary. Anyway I intend to think about the point deduction related to that cake maker case in Colorado.  

+53

Continuing from the preceding post:

However, shouldn't taking how the process of interest balancing was implemented for the validity of the end result, be used when you try to guess that validity from far not when you have the argument and even the arguing parties available for you to decide? Where else did the court use its decision making power to invalidate the result of an earlier process arguing insufficiency of that process while it has the argument available for it to decide the question of the validity of that same end result itself? The opinion of the court did not say anything about why it could not do that. All the talk about hostility to religion, while maybe gone after on a different ground,  matter only for the issue of constitutional freedom of religion in as much as it led to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Otherwise, the process itself does not matter in that regard.

Like I said earlier, I do not feel okay with unneeded forcing of somebody to violate his religion or beliefs but this is about the role of the court as merely applying the laws at hand.

+52

A little while ago I wrote a post under the number above severely criticizing the Supreme Court opinion on that Cake maker case (assuming no compromise is accepted on its rule as merely applying the law). But apparently I missed something making more sense than I took from what it said. Here is the simple thing which in my view the court did not sufficiently point out but would have made the opinion look to many readers like me, less strange. I also have been wondering about the difficulty in applying the religion clause of the First Amendment. It seems as if a big part of that is done through an interest balancing approach for related laws on the religious freedom of a person versus the interest of the state. It appears that in order to do that at least some laws related to the issue are not judged for constitutional conformity in their general form but instead until they are applied and that is why you see in the opinion how the law was applied on a specific case was taken as an indication for the validity or invalidity of the end result there.

+51

Continuing from the preceding post:

The more one moves away from this city toward the east of the big city the more it feels like being in a different world despite the physical proximity of the two.

+50

As a sample suggesting how much there is a desire to deny service on discriminating bases in this city, this incident happened to me today at Home Depot store #740. I wanted a 10 feet water pipe to be cut so I took it to where there is a sign stating "Cutting Center". Apparently because of the generality of that, I got confused and forgot that cutting such pipe happens at a different section. But what did the guy who came with me to do the cutting job do after knowing what I wanted to be cut? Did he try to direct me to the correct location for that? No, he just insisted that it cant be done on the machine there and sometimes used the word "here" to express that, which, especially in combination with the generality mentioned above could make one see it as referring to the entire store. He did not point me to the correct place for the task or even just tell me there is such place despite asking him about the entire store explicitly. On the contrary his answer would have probably made a trusting person who had not done this before there to leave the store thinking that they do not cut water pipes there.  

+49

Actually, that example in the preceding post was not randomly chosen but what pushed away postponing pointing out the core content of that post. A special focus, if not the main focus, was to oppose any judge especially Supreme Court judges who maintain that such claim was made because to me it is a horrifying thing. I think that such difference between existence and nonexistence should be clear especially to a judge and am very interested, if not in need, to see what argument supports what opposes my position on that claim. In fact it never occurred to me that there could be Supreme Court judges on the opposing side here until I saw what made me fear that could be the case after mentioning this as example elsewhere. Another thing that only occurred to me as a probability after I made that post. because of something I saw, was that post could be seen about my case. I would have posted the same with or without my case and it feels very frustrating to be taken that way this easily despite all what I have written. I am also very capable of seeing that I could be vehemently opposed on one issue while joined on the other by the same person, regardless of which of those two reactions put at the front. 

By the way, despite how intensely I wrote about not removing Saddam from power in the earlier war and the massacre that happened to the people after the uprising as a consequence to him being in power, I do not maintain that any promise for removing him from power was made from the government here and would oppose anyone from there claiming otherwise.            

+48

Weather it is a country, a party, an ethnicity, or anything else, I think that generally people here may need to watch out carefully for this group belonging seeking or maintaining from sliding them immorally because, while one may not perceive such difference on direct self serving things, this seems to have much stronger pull on people here than elsewhere. For example, if you are a member of the Democratic Party and claim that the government of the second Bush claimed a connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11 then, because of how much I was watching those things during that time (those were real news not the current jokes), unless you show me something supporting your position I missed then I am troubled with the probability of you making an immoral stand and being a false wittiness especially if I do not perceive you as easily confusing emotions you see with statement making.