USA

ITT: Reasons why USA sucks balls to live in and other instances of not making sense.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'm sure you would know all about what life in the USA is like.

I know a bunch. Enough to not want to ever live there.

I doubt a state can ban someone because they're an atheist and those laws are simply antiquated

(My father lived there for 8 years and would never go back)

This. Someone would try to uphold it because they don't like the candidate, but would likely be overturned by the state's supreme court. It's still illegal to have gay sex in some states even though gay marriage is legal everywhere.

>his father was having homosexual affairs with nigger men and user is going to judge an entire country because he watched his daddy get BLACKED

Cool story, you're a third world country.

Do you guys even have running water?

>this desperate, futile attempt by a third-worlder to talk shit about literally the greatest, most accomplished nation in human history
feels good to be an american, doesn't it ameribros?

This is not an attack on americans. I made it to have a look on how the American government is completely retarded.
Also, don't forget to go to the other tab you have open to complain about - you guessed it - the USA.

The only reason those bans are still in effect is because people forgot they even existed in the first place. Not even exaggerating, they have quite literally been forgotten and now the issue is just retard babble that the left use to push their dumbassery that nobody cares about.

Atheism is a meme. Everyone thinks they're enlightened by their intelligence and completely above 'outdated superstitions' until the first time they get shot at.

This kind of matter (based on the rights given by the constitution, therefore federal law) would almost certainly go to the national supreme court.

A drowning man will catch at a straw

If it needs to. I have a feeling it would just end at the state supreme court, they already know it would be overturned.

The higher ups would be sure to crunch up the person if they won.

No, it's a federal matter, it's not up to the state courts to make a decision.
It would probably go straight to the US supreme court, skipping the the circuit courts.

>It's still illegal to have gay sex in some states

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Every government is retarded. Most politicians are paid to jack off and talk shit without furthering progress. If progress is had they wouldn't be needed. Local ones here say stupid things like "bicycles need license plates" or "so you need that much space to have sex?" when asked why she thinks people aren't having children.

t. Someone who doesn't understand how the US court system works

It was a law inherited from the brits if im not mistaken. We have that here as well under "unnatural sex"

Reason number 2 (a)

Many people are forced to pay crazy amounts for a decent internet connection and some have only one ISP around.

How about you use an argument to defend your claim?
I'm pretty sure I'm in the right here, and that federal law is a matter for federal courts. But please, do try to prove me wrong!

Reason number 2 (b)

This is the czech division of UPC.
499CZK = $19.81
599CZK = $23.78
999CZK = $39.67

My friend moved back from the US for this sole reason.

...

It's regarding a state law that needs to be overturned. So it would go to the state's supreme court. If it gets overturned, it would end there, it is now legal to run in that state as an atheist. If it moves all the way up to the US supreme court and gets overturned, then it's effectively a federal law that "atheists may run for office in any state". No doubt it's something that the supreme court would overturn, but they don't bother looking at laws that are barely enforced anyway.

Sure does

>flag
THE fedorastan

Last time I was in court I had to swear an oath before God in order to testify.

Felt great. That's the way it should be. And you're damn right I told the truth.

Good. Stay out faglord

The US has tons of antiquated technically legal laws that are simply no longer referenced or endorsed. It's illegal in North Carolina to beat your wife on Sunday (but only Sunday) for example.

Lmao. Also, see that little blank country in the middle? That's where I live

Why would an atheist even want to hold a position in public office? It's not like they care about and want to help others. Well, I guess they could always take office in order to abuse the power and hurt those who elected them...

Yes you fool I know that. You see that state in the lower right with 96%? That's where I live.

>People should be forced to recognize my delusions

Hurr durr

>Atheists are incapable of humanity

Thank you for your input pastor bubba. See you in mass.

What are you talking about, USA is the best!

Welp... Sucks to be you I guess.

What delusions?

I was instructed to hold myself to my own beliefs as a predicate for the court taking me seriously. Do you not understand how the system works?

(You)

Oh wow.
>not likely they care about others
Isn't it christians who HATE people based on their own religion?

A Trump supporter? Oh my.

The implication that everyone must be held to your beliefs is a violation of the NAP boyfucker.

Praise be the God Emperor faggot.

Yes, it's a state law, but it wouldn't be overturned at a state level unless there was some other law to justify such a thing (for example, the states constitution).
If there was not state law that could be used to overturn it (which there probably isn't), then the defendant would have to take it to the supreme court (or a circuit courts) to have them overturn it due to federal law (the US constitution).
Depending on the commentary by the judges, it may, or may not, also nullify similar laws in other states.

This kind of matter sits firmly within federal power, and I'm not sure the state courts would even be allowed make a judgement on such a case, simply because the entire trial would rest on the defendant claiming the law is unconstitutional (clearly a case for the national supreme court).

Nobody implied that but yourself. You're doing more to violate NAP by calling me a boyfucker.

where at least i know im free

>Last time I was in court I had to swear an oath before God in order to testify.
>I had to swear
>Had
>Implied lack of choice (See; forced)

What if I don't believe in fairytales? Am I assumed guilty on the basis of being an empiricist?

Those are nihilists. Nihilists are almost always atheist, but #not all atheists are nihilists. I personally see value and a point in life even though I don't believe in god.

It's just how it works, though. Cases move up in our courts from lower courts. They don't just shoot right to the supreme court unless it's something that is about to blanket the entire country, like Obamacare for example. Here's the gay marriage one, for example. It wasn't a SCOTUS decision originally, it was after many state supreme courts refused to recognize or legalize gay marriage, so it moved up to the highest court. Most specifically, the Ohio case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

I suppose you'd have to ask the court. Nobody forced me to swear that particular oath.

A nihilist would be more likely to a neet potsmoker than some sort of manipulative sociopath out to hurt people for fun.

More than likely yeah. Though some like to get edgy about it.

Welp. This didn't turn out the way I wanted it to.
You need to take into account that every person is different. You can't really say that because a person is he will be like . For example, I believe we're a bunch of evolved primated flying on a piece of rock in the middle of 99% nothingness. I don't believe in god or anything spiritual. Anyways, anything makes more sense than one God who used his followers to write a book that tells people not to do what he himself did numerous times throughout the history.

The Obergefell v. Hodges case is different, because there was a "split between circuits" on the constitutionality of gay-marriage bans, simply because there is nothing in the constitution that clearly settled the debate, leading to political activism by the liberal judges of certain circuits.

And here's the important thing you are mistaken about: it wasn't "after many state supreme courts" that it was taken to the national supreme courts. The state supreme courts do not have a right to judge cases resting on federal laws.
Instead, this cases were judge by federal circuit courts, simply because the defendants based their defense on federal law, therefore turning it into a case that needs to be judged by a federal court.
This division between federal and state level laws is an extremely important part of how the US divides it's power between state and federal, it's quite literally defined in the constitution and will never change.

If I ever were to choose a philosphical doctrine I'd be a nihilist. And despite that, I am not a piece of shit. Since I have no need to hurt others or even make their day worse.

You are mistaking us for muslims, fedora user.

IS THIS REAL?

THAT IS ACTUALLY REALLY FUCKING BASED