Thanks to the majority of the Court for the label. Will wear it like the Star of David.
Ping to *my* ideological leader.... :)
I oppose faggotry.
Except maybe for some really hot lebesians.
Otherwise, no way.
Asking our opposition not to characterize us as "enemies of the human race" is like asking water to flow uphill.
You can ask, but it ain't gonna happen.
It is their plan to have most of us in the ovens, and the rest in chains.
There is a cleansing coming, and it will be Old Testament in both nature and scale.
And there is nothing any human can do to prevent it.
Well done, Laz.
Thanks for posting.
A judge who accuses his fellow judges in such a way is no longer fit to be a judge and should be removed from authority over the laws that govern us. To accuse in such a way from such a high position is to at once declare his opinion is superior to the laws. Such an judge should be removed from adjudication over the laws he so clearly abrogates in favor of his opinion.
bttt
Scalia is correct about this. It is astounding the carnage people are capable of once they’ve established their opponents are not human. They choose to be...for want of a better word, “inhumane.”
They will regret declaring their opponents to be enemies. One can disagree with opponents, and still respect each other and our right to disagree; one can only fight enemies, until one or the other prevails.
They are not jurists - at least not of the type we as Americans expect. They are apparatchiks, in the original Soviet meaning of the word.
Every time it happened it began by dehumanizing the oppressed. Romans tried to do it with the Christians. The white settlers did it with the Native Americans and Africans to make them slaves.
The third Reich did it with the Jews.... and so on.
The last part spoke how the left was referring to infants in the womb as Tissue, or fetus, etc..... everything but babies or infants.
Buy lots of ammo whenever you can. Supreme Court dyke quota fillers Kaka and Wide Latina are trying to stir up the taker class.
Stalinist, Marxist ideologies always devolve into eliminating their political opposition.
So, in an attempt to stay on the topic of your original post, which I think is very important.
Enemies of the Human Race, is a bold statement to be sure, but to suggest THIS ruling and verbiage will embolden them and their cause to “dehumanize and exterminate” their opposition would require a wholly new and accepted narrative.
Your history is correct and very clear. It’s been done many many times. However, in the context of time and freedom, the ability to decide, which side any individual will fall into, hasn’t been tested in the US since the Civil War.
I agree that we are entering into a new paradigm.
I agree that what you and others are saying is very possible.
Is this the beginning of the end ?
Maybe.
Does this open the door for the possible tyranny you have described ?
WITHOUT A DOUBT !!!!!
People have an amazing ability to rationalize their behavior. This rationalization can and is motivated by any number of factors. Most people end up weighing their conscious against peer pressure.
Peer pressure, in our times and in this case is the fear of being called a racist or homophobe. This, oddly enough, cuts across both race and sexual preferences. It is a new paradigm.
The battle will be between the conscious of the individual and the collective conscious of social pressures to conform.
There have been extraordinary advances in the US for people to conform to the collective. It is virtually everywhere, and the narrative only grows louder as Gov’t, media and business trip over themselves to prove they are not racist or homophobic.
There will be a new definition of what it means to be “Human”. That MUST also include what that person believes.
Freedom for them, is freedom FROM US.
And they will kill you for that.
I’d wonder how such a thing managed to get into a judicial opinion at all. Generally judges don’t make stuff up like this; they get it from one of the parties to the case. The argument that oh, it’s just reasonless hatred has popped up before in court cases, and I’d wonder why there wasn’t an effective counter to that (i.e. to provide reasons why it’s bad public policy to dilute the meaning of marriage this way).