Supreme Court's 'pro-God' Pledge Ruling
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag. True. How about a hypothetical case? Suppose he wanted custody of his daughter based on his ability to better provide than the mother. (I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but suppose that was his position.) You or I would not have standing to file such a case in her behalf. But as a parent, clearly he would. If the courts took the USSC ruling to it’s logical extreme, he has no standing to sue for custody since he doesn’t have custody. You mean paternity would not enter into it????? Wow. That’s gotta be new, isn’t it?
Apparently not, according to the majority of the US Supreme Court. It’s a completely bizarre ruling. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
So the Supreme Court should not have heard Bush’s case in the Florida elections?
Who had custody of Gore anyway? 
William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. The word standing doesn’t need quotes around it. It’s an age-old legal concept which is fundamental to our legal system. Using it that way, calling it a technicality, is just bragging loud and long about your own ignorance. Quotes were called for to diferenciate between "standing" as the legal term, and "standing issue" as the point of the case. Take the quotes out and see if you can be sure what I was saying. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter.
And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag.
True. How about a hypothetical case? Suppose he wanted custody of his daughter based on his ability to better provide than the mother. (I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but suppose that was his position.) You or I would not have standing to file such a case in her behalf. But as a parent, clearly he would. If the courts took the USSC ruling to it’s logical extreme, he has no standing to sue for custody since he doesn’t have custody. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all. Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. And that alone ought to give him standing for the case. They were wrong, and it will make a mess of family law when it’s used as a precedent in cases that have nothing to do with the flag. True. How about a hypothetical case? Suppose he wanted custody of his daughter based on his ability to better provide than the mother. (I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but suppose that was his position.) You or I would not have standing to file such a case in her behalf. But as a parent, clearly he would. If the courts took the USSC ruling to it’s logical extreme, he has no standing to sue for custody since he doesn’t have custody.
You mean paternity would not enter into it????? Wow. That’s gotta be new, isn’t it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20% True, but C is irrelevant. I really don’t care what individuals and organizations use as excuses. I’m atheist. If they don’t like me, don’t want to associate with me, don’t want to hire or rent to me, fine. Their loss. But I do expect my constitutional rights to be respected. As a taxpaying american citizen, I expect my believes to be irrelevant when dealing with government. It dob’t think (c) is irrelevant: it depends who is saying and doing it. One of the individuals was daddy Bush, saying atheists shouldn’t be citizens and couldn’t be patriotic. He refused to retract it and his spokesman said atheism was bullshit – so this was the official policy of his candicacy in 1988.
Yep, but he was subject to the constitution. We did not elect a dictator. William R. James
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. The word standing doesn’t need quotes around it. It’s an age-old legal concept which is fundamental to our legal system. Using it that way, calling it a technicality, is just bragging loud and long about your own ignorance.
Quotes were called for to diferenciate between "standing" as the legal term, and "standing issue" as the point of the case. Take the quotes out and see if you can be sure what I was saying. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all.
Simple. A father absolutely has responsibility for the welfare of his offspring. That too is a tradition going back further than civilization itself. For the courts to use his status as noncustodial parent as an axcuse not to rule on the case is simply a blatently cowardly act of avoidance, a derilection of their duties, and an anti-family ruling at best. He was not a life long estranged parent with no contact or parental rights. He was simply not given primary custody of his daughter in what amounted to a commonlaw divorce. He still has responsibilities and rights conserning his daughter. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (I’m ignoring the other critics’ feeble-minded whining and continuing with you because I replied to you earlier.) It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. Can you really read their minds that well, as opposed to making the logical inference that this merely was a technicality? Are you aware that by implying the Court should intervene you are dangerously approaching illegitimate judicial activism? It is not the place of any court to tell us what the law should or should not be, or (worse) to invent law; enacting or repealing of laws, and the substance of those laws, are properly the rule of the legislature. In fact, the Court has properly refused to hear cases before and this in no way is "cowardly" [sic]; the problem we have faced for ages is the opposite, where the court system arrogates power reserved legally and exclusively to the legislature. Those who want government intervention or decry any exception to the contemporary illegitimate practice of interventionism are intentionally or accidentally joining the group who is for the rule of courts and people instead of true rule of law.
See my previous post. The courts, in order to avoid their duty, have usurped the parental rights of all non-custodial parents. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. False statement. This issue was clearly evident (or should be, anyway).
Evident only to those who want the courts to ignore the constitution if it suits their own agendas. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? Well gee wiz, will they take the same position regarding child support? Irrelevent appeal to emotion, false analogy. "Regarding his daughter" is superficial, shallow. Specifically, the issue is whether or not he could sue on behalf of his daughter when the custodial relationship is questionable. This was a legal technicality that is clearly evident (or should be, anyway).
Nonsense. He was not estranged from his daughter. It’s not like he had abandoned her and his parental rights terminated. It seems that if it helps them avoid taking a stand on a contravercial issue, however, the USSC is willing to rule that unless you get custody, you have no rights. As I said before (* sigh *), this was a legal technicality, and they’ll be back. Dave Simpson
Yes, and I wonder who the courts will step on next time in order to avoid doing their job. William R. James
Response:
There is nothing unconstitutional about federal or states use of religious text or symbols. To say it is unconstitutional is an insult to the constitution and the its framers. A much more honest way of putting it is to say it is aginst prior federal court decissions, but never say it is unconstitutional because that is an outright lie.
Maybe we have different version of the First Amendment it does not allow the mixing of Religion and Government and there is that whole not establishing any religion. When someone like say Congress inserts a religous phrase specificly for the purpose of push religion over none religion it is unconstitutional perhpas you should look at the history of the pledge sometime. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please explain how requiring the Federal and State Government comply with the Constitution. The phrase "Under God" was unconstitutionally slipped into the expressed purpose of promoting religion over none religion and this is not allowed. Eisenhower himself said it was for the purpose of showing the communist how religious a nation we are. The fact that it pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus a Catholic organization that was and is a religious fraternity. So, again I ask how this is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The fact that you right wing fundamentalist nitwits do not like it does not change that fact and the Court was looking for any excuse not to rule on the case. Might I suggest that you pull your cranium out of your anal orifice and begin to look around at the greatest Nation in the world because of our diversity not in spite of it. Dave Simpson
Response:
There is nothing unconstitutional about federal or states use of religious text or symbols. To say it is unconstitutional is an insult to the constitution and the its framers. A much more honest way of putting it is to say it is aginst prior federal court decissions, but never say it is unconstitutional because that is an outright lie.
But this dispute is not about state or fedearl use of religious text or symbols. It’s about [1] whether the government has a right to use the public schools for religious indoctrination and [2] whether that is what is going on. If you read what was put forward when the legislation authorizing the change to the pledge was put forward, it is clear that the INTENT to indoctrinate was there, and that is clearly an establishment of religion, thus the authorizing legislation itself may have been unconstitutional. But at the time, if you hadn’t voted for it you’d have been labelled an atheist and — what’s worse — a Communist so your career would be through. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
(I’m ignoring the other critics’ feeble-minded whining and continuing with you because I replied to you earlier.) It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue.
Can you really read their minds that well, as opposed to making the logical inference that this merely was a technicality? Are you aware that by implying the Court should intervene you are dangerously approaching illegitimate judicial activism? It is not the place of any court to tell us what the law should or should not be, or (worse) to invent law; enacting or repealing of laws, and the substance of those laws, are properly the rule of the legislature. In fact, the Court has properly refused to hear cases before and this in no way is "cowardly" [sic]; the problem we have faced for ages is the opposite, where the court system arrogates power reserved legally and exclusively to the legislature. Those who want government intervention or decry any exception to the contemporary illegitimate practice of interventionism are intentionally or accidentally joining the group who is for the rule of courts and people instead of true rule of law. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it.
False statement. This issue was clearly evident (or should be, anyway). A father has no standing regarding his daughter? Well gee wiz, will they take the same position regarding child support?
Irrelevent appeal to emotion, false analogy. "Regarding his daughter" is superficial, shallow. Specifically, the issue is whether or not he could sue on behalf of his daughter when the custodial relationship is questionable. This was a legal technicality that is clearly evident (or should be, anyway). As I said before (* sigh *), this was a legal technicality, and they’ll be back. Dave Simpson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (I’m ignoring the other critics’ feeble-minded whining and continuing with you because I replied to you earlier.) It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. Can you really read their minds that well, as opposed to making the logical inference that this merely was a technicality? Are you aware that by implying the Court should intervene you are dangerously approaching illegitimate judicial activism? It is not the place of any court to tell us what the law should or should not be, or (worse) to invent law; enacting or repealing of laws, and the substance of those laws, are properly the rule of the legislature. In fact, the Court has properly refused to hear cases before and this in no way is "cowardly" [sic]; the problem we have faced for ages is the opposite, where the court system arrogates power reserved legally and exclusively to the legislature. Those who want government intervention or decry any exception to the contemporary illegitimate practice of interventionism are intentionally or accidentally joining the group who is for the rule of courts and people instead of true rule of law.
So the Supreme Court should not have heard Bush’s case in the Florida elections? No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
It was written: Another legally dumb Atheist kicked in the teeth.
Note that the ruling itself was one of the best conceivable examples of a phrase you hear often, overused, but is completely correct here: a legal technicality. (The plaintiff doesn’t have uncontested legal custody of his daughter at this time, so he cannot file suit on behalf of her.) "Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court." "In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow’s right to communicate with his child–which both California law and the First Amendment recognize–and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&inv… This issue is far from settled. It is good that along with this technicality, the merits of the argument itself were also referenced and at least three Justices said they see nothing wrong with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. (This includes O’Connor as well as Rehnquist and Thomas; it’s not some right-wing troika that the Left will make into myth.) Dave Simpson
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was written: Another legally dumb Atheist kicked in the teeth. Note that the ruling itself was one of the best conceivable examples of a phrase you hear often, overused, but is completely correct here: a legal technicality. (The plaintiff doesn’t have uncontested legal custody of his daughter at this time, so he cannot file suit on behalf of her.) "Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court." "In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow’s right to communicate with his child–which both California law and the First Amendment recognize–and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&inv… This issue is far from settled. It is good that along with this technicality, the merits of the argument itself were also referenced and at least three Justices said they see nothing wrong with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. (This includes O’Connor as well as Rehnquist and Thomas; it’s not some right-wing troika that the Left will make into myth.) Dave Simpson
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. William R. James
Response:
a legal technicality. It was a cowardly ruling…
The concept of standing is a centuries old doctrine that is explicitly written into the U.S. Constitution. One who calls a ruling on the basis of standing (or lack thereof) a "technicality" shows a glaring ignorance of how the law works in the U.S. (or the western world, for that matter). Three justices disagreed with the standing ruling, and went on to discuss the underlying question, but that doesn’t mean the majority was cowardly. They were just doing their job. If you disagree with the standing decision, let’s hear your analysis. (And you might want to explain this, while you’re at it: "contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well" … ?)
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed.
There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) Dave Simpson
Response:
The concept of standing is a centuries old doctrine that is explicitly written into the U.S. Constitution. One who calls a ruling on the basis of standing (or lack thereof) a "technicality" shows a glaring ignorance of how the law works in the U.S. (or the western world, for that matter).
I called it a "legal technicality," and I was correct. The ruling was on a technical issue of law rather than on the plaintiff’s complaint or demand itself. Three justices disagreed with the standing ruling, and went on to discuss the underlying question, but that doesn’t mean the majority was cowardly. They were just doing their job.
Correct. Activists might not like it (any more than they might dislike a dismissal or refusal to hear the case because it wasn’t printed on the right kind of paper, for example), but this wasn’t cowardly, the activists will be back (there must be an ocean of willing people in this country who do have standing to sue — activists cannot count on every court behaving as the Ninth Circus Court does, and expect to get away with, or be rewarded by, all they could hope for, and they should not have been negligent in this case), but the ruling was not cowardly, simply technical rather than addressing the complaint itself. And as you also correctly noted, three justices did discuss the issue. Dave Simpson
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.)
The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20% – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.)
On the contrary, it’s anti-family in that the Court said the father as a non-custodial parent has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to try to protect his daughter from what he sees (perhaps wrongfully) as the intrusive power of the State. (And who gets to decide which is the custodial parent? The State!) This case will become a precedent in family law, not in 1st Amendment rights! Rather than this unfortunate approach, the Court should have summoned up some moral courage (I hear they bottle that in Tennessee) and told us whether or not the words in the Pledge amounted to an establishment of religion. It’s still unclear, and the case will be back with a different plaintiff. No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) Dave Simpson
I’m hardly someone people generally consider to be on the left. Use google if you doubt that. It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it. A father has no standing regarding his daughter? Well gee wiz, will they take the same position regarding child support? William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20%
True, but C is irrelevant. I really don’t care what individuals and organizations use as excuses. I’m atheist. If they don’t like me, don’t want to associate with me, don’t want to hire or rent to me, fine. Their loss. But I do expect my constitutional rights to be respected. As a taxpaying american citizen, I expect my believes to be irrelevant when dealing with government. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.) The only thing that is anti-American, is the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because it (a) was unconstitutionally inserted by Congress in an act signed by Eisenhower (b) excludes maybe 20% of the citizens (c) is used by organisations and individuals to justify bigotry against that 20% True, but C is irrelevant. I really don’t care what individuals and organizations use as excuses. I’m atheist. If they don’t like me, don’t want to associate with me, don’t want to hire or rent to me, fine. Their loss. But I do expect my constitutional rights to be respected. As a taxpaying american citizen, I expect my believes to be irrelevant when dealing with government.
It dob’t think (c) is irrelevant: it depends who is saying and doing it. One of the individuals was daddy Bush, saying atheists shouldn’t be citizens and couldn’t be patriotic. He refused to retract it and his spokesman said atheism was bullshit – so this was the official policy of his candicacy in 1988. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -William R. James
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling and contrary to the regular rants of the christians, quite anti-family as well. I wonder if they would have reacted the same way had their roles been reversed. There is nothing "anti-family" about the ruling, and it wasn’t cowardly (unless you were demanding illegitimate judicial activism, as is typical with the Left, which doesn’t merit inclusion or respect here). It was simply a technicality. As I’ve also written elsewhere, "they’ll be back." (And "they" it truly is, an attempted action that is anti-American and alien to us who are real Americans.)
Please explain how requiring the Federal and State Government comply with the Constitution. The phrase "Under God" was unconstitutionally slipped into the expressed purpose of promoting religion over none religion and this is not allowed. Eisenhower himself said it was for the purpose of showing the communist how religious a nation we are. The fact that it pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus a Catholic organization that was and is a religious fraternity. So, again I ask how this is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The fact that you right wing fundamentalist nitwits do not like it does not change that fact and the Court was looking for any excuse not to rule on the case. Might I suggest that you pull your cranium out of your anal orifice and begin to look around at the greatest Nation in the world because of our diversity not in spite of it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dave Simpson
Response:
It was a cowardly ruling because they specifically looked for an excuse not to address the issue. It was anti-family because they had to twist the "standing" issue into a knot to make it.
The word standing doesn’t need quotes around it. It’s an age-old legal concept which is fundamental to our legal system. Using it that way, calling it a technicality, is just bragging loud and long about your own ignorance. A father has no standing regarding his daughter?
As a matter of fact, in this situation he does not. The opinion explains in some detail why that is so. If you want to address it, explain to us why the reasoning used in the Supreme Court opinion is flawed, please feel free. But arguing by saying, How can that be?, is no argument at all.
Response:
There is nothing unconstitutional about federal or states use of religious text or symbols. To say it is unconstitutional is an insult to the constitution and the its framers. A much more honest way of putting it is to say it is aginst prior federal court decissions, but never say it is unconstitutional because that is an outright lie. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please explain how requiring the Federal and State Government comply with the Constitution. The phrase "Under God" was unconstitutionally slipped into the expressed purpose of promoting religion over none religion and this is not allowed. Eisenhower himself said it was for the purpose of showing the communist how religious a nation we are. The fact that it pushed through Congress by the Knights of Columbus a Catholic organization that was and is a religious fraternity. So, again I ask how this is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The fact that you right wing fundamentalist nitwits do not like it does not change that fact and the Court was looking for any excuse not to rule on the case. Might I suggest that you pull your cranium out of your anal orifice and begin to look around at the greatest Nation in the world because of our diversity not in spite of it. Dave Simpson
Response:
Filed under: Judicial Activism
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.