Posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax
No "neutralizing" criteria will ever be enough; the context requirement is a bottomless loophole.
And that's exactly what the facts is.
(or something)
Actually that's no guarantee that we'll get good justices. What Congress and the President really need to do is cut off broad swaths of jurisdiction to the federal courts until they learn how to read the Constitution. (Congress does have that power)
The Supreme Court has also said it's OK to kill babies, but that doesn't make it right. Saying that the Ten Commandments are displayed with a Muslim and a Buddhist, and that makes it OK, is begging the question:
If it's 'OK' for the SCOTUS to display them, whatever the context, why is it not 'OK' for the states?
You've fallen for this "high wall of separation" jazz. That's just a metaphor and a misleading one at that. The Supremes have been making that wall ever higher since using the phrase. It's not free exercise or establishment.
Parse it any way you want, you can try to pass this mule off as a horse but it's just the states and counties trying to do what the SCOTUS does. Hypocrisy is immoral and,
"What is morally wrong can never be politically right." Abraham Lincoln
You ask me to ignore context. But context is essential.
This isn't the only area of the law in which context is important. To simply ignore it is folly.
Haha, why thank you. Expected to be safe from the hippy culture at a University in Texas, how wrong I was.
Again, we can parse words like "context" and the meaning of the word "is" all day, but the SCOTUS tells the states that display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, and all the while the SCOTUS displays the Ten Commandments.
You're right: that's folly.
I understand what you are saying and couldn't agree more. There are a hell of a lot more things they could be doing too. This steady march towards Socialism too much.
They are corrupting our Schools and therefore our children and undermining our Moral, Christian and Patriotic values.
The dessenting justice Sauter mentioned the First Amendment as stipulating that no State religion should be established or words to that effect. The ADF says other wise:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/churchandstate.aspx?cid=3410
The First Amendment
To believe that the Constitution requires a total separation of church and state is to believe a lie. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding documents of this nation will one find the phrase so often used today, “separation of church and state.”
Significantly, the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even mentioned in the Congressional Record from June 7 to September 25, 1789, the period that documents the months of discussions and debates of the 90 men who framed the First Amendment. Had separation been the intent of the First Amendment, it seems logical that the phrase would have been mentioned at least once.
Unfortunately, radical advocates have long been trying to re-write the Constitution by making the First Amendment say something it doesn’t.
In contrast, the Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: God as the Creator and the source of liberty (“all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights”), God the law giver (“law of nature and of nature’s God”), God the ultimate judge (“the Supreme Judge of the World”), and God as the king above all earthly rulers, as the Sovereign (“Divine Providence”).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318061/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318038/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318034/posts
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254190/posts
SCOTUS needs an overhaul. Big Time.
Not to mention, God who's still involved, in contrast to the leftist canard that the Founders were "deists" who thought that God made the world and then went off on permanent vacation. The fact that the DoI says that they're "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World" and having "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" flies right in the face of that mythology.
I didn't say that I disagree with the rulings. I just think they're inconsistent. It seems they're drawing fine lines between displays and monuments.
I too want to see Sandra hit the road.
She is perfect example of why we need a "Right-wing Extremist -like Scalia " on the supreme court. If Bush does NOT nominate someone the liberals call an "unreasonable, right-wing extremist" we know we are going to get another O'Conner.
So,I'll be watching the liberals reaction to any new appointee. If the liberals talk about how "reasonable" and "mainstream" the nominee is, I'll know we've lost.
They are edging ever closer to ordering the 10 commandments to be chiseled off the walls of every courthouse in the nation, including their own.
You haven't studied Contstitutional Lawr, RW, I HAVE!
What about the Magna Carta?
The Spurs, the Longhorns, and now the 10 Commandments, all in 1 week. Texas is on a winning streak.
You need to take those f#ckin queer'ans away from those freaks in guantanamo bay then and stop that cat squawling over the loud speakers. NO GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP OF RELIGION MEANS PIGSTICKIN MUZZIES TOO!
Our lawr ins't based on Confucious, mohummed (pigsbuh), or Nappolean. It's based on the BIBLE and the 10 Commandments. That's why the monuments are there. Not to give a f&ckin diversity lesson. Get it?
Oh, I am really impressed.
Studying law based upon what today's interpretation of the Constitution is.
Oh I bow before you.
Oh nevermind. I guess we are actually both on the same side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.