NationStates Jolt Archive

WE HAVE AN OPENING ON THE SUPREME COURT!!!!

Sandra Day O'Conner has just retired.

More on this to come.

In the blue corner, weighing in as the President of the United State and wearing red, white, and blue shorts, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH and in red corner, weighing in at 100 Senators, THE UNITED STATES SENATE!

LLLLLLLLLEEETTTTSSSS GET READY TO RUMBLE

links to come.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161308,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8430976/

Great, so we replace a swing vote with a straight conservative loon, woo hoo

*Grabs chair, popcorn, and waits for the fireworks to start.*

You're kidding, right? This is fake, right? I'm being deceived aren't I? This is too good to be true!

I wonder which superstitious psycho Bush will appoint to replace her.

You're kidding, right? This is fake, right? I'm being deceived aren't I? This is too good to be true!


It's real alright. Just saw it on CNN. :)

:(

I wonder which superstitious psycho Bush will appoint to replace her.


I predict it will be someone that can be percieved as being from a minority group. Likely a black or hispanic woman. I have no idea of who possible appointees could be, but President Bush has no problem with diversity.

I predict it will be someone that can be percieved as being from a minority group. Likely a black or hispanic woman. I have no idea of who possible appointees could be, but President Bush has no problem with diversity.
Racial diversity? No problem. Diversity of ideas? I'm not so sure.

Probably one of the Commando series. Gads, what an idea. Think of all the super fundies we have on NS. Anyone of them would be a prime candidate. The horror.

Now if only the older conservatives retire so Bush can replace them with younger ones....we might have a grip on power for a long time to come :D

Now if only the older conservatives retire so Bush can replace them with younger ones....we might have a grip on power for a long time to come :D

Or a very short and bloody time. It depends really.

If some of the conservatives (neo) here are the benchmark, I would bet on a ruinous time too.

Now if only the older conservatives retire so Bush can replace them with younger ones....we might have a grip on power for a long time to come :D

And you act as if you are persecuted :rolleyes:

Racial diversity? No problem. Diversity of ideas? I'm not so sure.


We'll see. There isa Mike Crapo from Idaho. I dont think "Crapo" would survive-at least political satirists and cartoonists would be guaranteed work for a while.

And you act as if you are persecuted :rolleyes:



Not much anymore if things go well :D

I guess this is karma from the gay marriage rulings in Spain and Canada.

Racial diversity? No problem. Diversity of ideas? I'm not so sure.

Ditto.

All I can say is that I'm happy to be able to witness an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. I was to young to really understand what was going on with Clarence Thomas and hence tuned it all out. Time to make up for my lack of vision. :)

Just saw it on the "Breaking News" flash on tv.

Well now the shrub gets his chance to stack the court with another arch-conservative ideologue.

Hmmm. I wonder if this will motivate people to toss the Republican majority in 2006?

Americans tend to not like have one bunch running everything.

And you act as if you are persecuted :rolleyes:

For some reason, this felt really appropriate.

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/respect.html

Heh, and for the super fundies, this certainly drew a chuckle from me.

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/rapture.html

Not much anymore if things go well :D

I guess this is karma from the gay marriage rulings in Spain and Canada.
I don't think it can be karma from gay marriage rulings in Spain or Canada. That would involve something good happening to those countries.

It's probably karma for not allowing gay marriage here in the USA. We're being punished by a plague of bush appointees.

You're kidding, right? This is fake, right? I'm being deceived aren't I? This is too good to be true!

I am not kidding. Sandra Day O'Conner has officially retired though she'll stay on the court till a replacement is confirmed. Whenever that is going to be!

For some reason, this felt really appropriate.

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/respect.html

Heh, and for the super fundies, this certainly drew a chuckle from me.

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/rapture.html


Oh those are very funny. :D OMG that is so funny. I love the Rapture one. :D

Not much anymore if things go well :D

I guess this is karma from the gay marriage rulings in Spain and Canada.

:rolleyes:

All I can say is that I'm happy to be able to witness an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. I was to young to really understand what was going on with Clarence Thomas and hence tuned it all out. Time to make up for my lack of vision. :)

I know that I'm going to be watching the Judicial hearings on her replacement. Its going to get very very interesting.

I am not kidding. Sandra Day O'Conner has officially retired though she'll stay on the court till a replacement is confirmed. Whenever that is going to be!

Now the fight really begins. The demos aren't going to deal on this.

The repubs are going to realise their stupidity of getting the moderate swing demos tossed.

:rolleyes:



Oh come on, you all got to gloat all you wanted over the gay marriage rulings, so it's about time I got a chance in the spotlight :D

I know that I'm going to be watching the Judicial hearings on her replacement. Its going to get very very interesting.


I am going to do the exact same thing. I'll turn the tv on and just listen to the heated exchanges.

Oh come on, you all got to gloat all you wanted over the gay marriage rulings, so it's about time I got a chance in the spotlight :D

That maybe.

But remember when you move the court in too much in the direction of one philosophy; it has a habit of swinging the other way just as hard.

About time that world government worshipping bitch retires.

Well now the shrub gets his chance to stack the court with another arch-conservative ideologue.

What I find to be interesting is that Ford's appointee, John Paul Stevens , when nominated was considered a Moderate Conservative. He's now sometimes considered to be the most liberal Justice on the Court. We've moved that far to the right. And we may go even farther.

There go our rights.

About time that world government worshipping bitch retires.
Better to have a government-worshipper in the court than a god-worshipper. A government-worshipper will respect the separation of church and state. A god-worshipper probably won't.

About time that world government worshipping bitch retires.

Its interesting to note that Sandra Day O'Conner was a swing vote on SCOTUS.

I know that I'm going to be watching the Judicial hearings on her replacement. Its going to get very very interesting.

I doubt I will. The shrub will appoint some arch conservative and then ramble on about the demos styiming progress and that we can't have filabusters. blah blah blah.

Bad things will come from this. Too much of one philosophy tends to make the next round of replacements swing to the other direction.

What was the conservative complaints about legislating from the bench? Ahhh the smell of hypocracy.

About time that world government worshipping bitch retires.

Actually she tended to be a moderate and acted as a swing vote.

I would take her over and shub replacement anytime.

I doubt I will. The shrub will appoint some arch conservative and then ramble on about the demos styiming progress and that we can't have filabusters. blah blah blah.

Actually, what one of the networks was saying (and this according to my mother because I didn't hear it, she did) that he is going to try to find someone like O'Conner.

Bad things will come from this. Too much of one philosophy tends to ake the next round of replacements swing to the other direction.

That explains why the Republicans took power in 1994! :D

What was the conservative complaints about legislating from the bench? Ahhh the smell of hypocracy.

Politics is nothing but Hypocracy :D

Actually, what one of the networks was saying (and this according to my mother because I didn't hear it, she did) that he is going to try to find someone like O'Conner.


Sure he will. Sureeeeeeeee.

If you belive that, I have a bridge for you. ;)

It will be either another Thomas or another Scalia *sighs*

Why dont we wait and see? There are two other justices due to retire as well.

Sure he will. Sureeeeeeeee.

If you belive that, I have a bridge for you. ;)

It will be either another Thomas or another Scalia *sighs*

I think she was watching ABC.

Anyway, let us wait and see who he puts up.

*grabs a tin foil hat*

Oh God...I can smell it already...It's in the air, like the stench of a rotten wildebeest...Can you not hear it's vile whisper? It curls around your ear, only to whisper...

Filibuster...

Sure he will. Sureeeeeeeee.

If you belive that, I have a bridge for you. ;)

It will be either another Thomas or another Scalia *sighs*


What is wrong with Thomas?

Is it because he is a blackman, or maybe cause he isn't a democrat and thus isn't a real blackman?

Now if only the older conservatives retire so Bush can replace them with younger ones....we might have a grip on power for a long time to come :D

Yes, because power is what it is all about.

Good governing? Nah, none of that. Human rights? Nah, none of that. A proper judiciary that makes decisions based on the law, rather than personal philosophy? Of course not!

It's all about putting power in the hands of the greedy people who want it. Yup, I'm so glad this is the way people think, let me tell you.

What is wrong with Thomas?

Is it because he is a blackman, or maybe cause he isn't a democrat and thus isn't a real blackman?

Or maybe it's the fact that he thinks that our states should be able to legislate a state religion onto the populace?

Actually, what one of the networks was saying (and this according to my mother because I didn't hear it, she did) that he is going to try to find someone like O'Conner.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Yeah, just like he finds scientific advisors - "What? They actually stick to the results of science!?!?! Fire them! Find me someone who will say what I want to hear!"

Or maybe it's the fact that he thinks that our states should be able to legislate a state religion onto the populace?

The Federal Government can't have an official religion, nothing in the constitution that says that the states themselves cant! :D

yes its a joke post! don't take it seriously

Or maybe it's the fact that he thinks that our states should be able to legislate a state religion onto the populace?


Proof?

Proof?

Still looking for the action decision this is from. This was a concurring opinion on a decision allowing religious services in prisons.

[thomas]The view that the Establishment Clause precludes Congress from legislating respecting religion lacks historical provenance. Even when enacting laws that bind the states pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion," he says. "It need only refrain from making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion.[/quote]

In other words, Congress has to let a state establish a religion if they want to.

Proof?
The FMA, federal stem cell policy, his stance on abortion, etc, etc.

What is wrong with Thomas?

Is it because he is a blackman, or maybe cause he isn't a democrat and thus isn't a real blackman?
Nice. I love it when somebody plays the race card. It adds so much class and raises the intellectual level of any debate.

What is wrong with Thomas?

Is it because he is a blackman, or maybe cause he isn't a democrat and thus isn't a real blackman?
Congratulations (http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW02-23-05.jpg), you've learned well.

Hopefully the next justice is at least an Anthony Kennedy :p

Nice. I love it when somebody plays the race card. It adds so much class and raises the intellectual level of any debate.

Especially when s/he chooses to use "blackman" rather than "black man". The former implies a completely different species, the latter at least just points out the difference. Both are offensive, but the former is far worse.

The FMA, federal stem cell policy, his stance on abortion, etc, etc.


No, actual proof.

Nice. I love it when somebody plays the race card. It adds so much class and raises the intellectual level of any debate.

Honestly, do you think all of that fuss would have occured had Thomas been a non-conservative blackman?

Honestly, do you think all of that fuss would have occured had Thomas been a non-conservative blackman?

That depends. What is a blackman?

Congratulations (http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW02-23-05.jpg), you've learned well.

Seriously, you liberals like to say that you are all for racial diversity, but infact you are the ones who push racial inequality. Just look at the makeup of Clintons' cabinet. Who was the highest ranked minority? Just because one of your minorities leave your camp you automatically discredit them for "not being a real minority".

Especially when s/he chooses to use "blackman" rather than "black man". The former implies a completely different species, the latter at least just points out the difference. Both are offensive, but the former is far worse.


It's called a typing error. Good grief, get over yourself.

Honestly, do you think all of that fuss would have occured had Thomas been a non-conservative blackman?
Sure. The Republicans love to smear liberals. Look at the lies spread about Kerry during the last election. Look at the false accusation that Gore said he invented the internet.

That depends. What is a blackman?


That's right, ignore the question and attack my poor typing skills. You should be proud.

Sure. The Republicans love to smear liberals. Look at the lies spread about Kerry during the last election. Look at the false accusation that Gore said he invented the internet.


Last time I checked, Kerry and Gore were both white. Besides, Kerry was a liar, and had nothing to really run on. Gore was just pathetic. Yeah, "Love Story" was about him and Tipper.

Seriously, you liberals like to say that you are all for racial diversity, but infact you are the ones who push racial inequality. Just look at the makeup of Clintons' cabinet. Who was the highest ranked minority? Just because one of your minorities leave your camp you automatically discredit them for "not being a real minority".
Fantastic. Quote someone here actually saying that, because it seems you are the one who brought up race. Thus making the comic frightfully accurate. Nice job.

The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Hearings will be saturday morning cartoons compared to the smearfest/character assassination the liberals will try on the next appointee. Forget voting, it's time for nonstop filibuster.

I predict he or she will be labelled a nazi, homophobe, bigot, polluting, mean spirited, Jesus freak, out of control facist because they think differently than the liberals. Their freedom of speech is not for political discourse and honest debate but for character assassination of those who are different than they.

Sure. The Republicans love to smear liberals. Look at the lies spread about Kerry during the last election. Look at the false accusation that Gore said he invented the internet.

Look at the smear campaign on President Bush From Falsifing Memos to lying about WMD when everyone knows that it was BAD INTEL but I'm not going to go there.

Both sides smear eachother now lets get back to Sandra Day O'Conner

Seriously, you liberals like to say that you are all for racial diversity, but infact you are the ones who push racial inequality. Just look at the makeup of Clintons' cabinet. Who was the highest ranked minority? Just because one of your minorities leave your camp you automatically discredit them for "not being a real minority".
Got a quote to back that allegation up? I've never heard Thomas or Rice discredited for "not being a real minority" by anybody in the democrat party. The only time I've heard anybody say that was when one of my black friends made such a comment about Condi Rice. He's not a democrat, and doesn't even vote.

Sure. The Republicans love to smear liberals. Look at the lies spread about Kerry during the last election. Look at the false accusation that Gore said he invented the internet.

Also, the Thomas hearings were just proof that the left couldn't handle a black man who is a conservative. They drug him through the coals over a totally false accusation. I guess he was just another uncle Tom, huh?

Fantastic. Quote someone here actually saying that, because it seems you are the one who brought up race. Thus making the comic frightfully accurate. Nice job.

Yeah nice comic btw. If thats all you've got then you suck.

Yeah nice comic btw. If thats all you've got then you suck.
Still waiting on that quote.

Yeah nice comic btw. If thats all you've got then you suck.

Herbert, Shut up. Lets not attack eachother in here please. You've done nothing but attack other posters because they disagreed with you. Knock it off.

Also, the Thomas hearings were just proof that the left couldn't handle a black man who is a conservative. They drug him through the coals over a totally false accusation. I guess he was just another uncle Tom, huh?
Dude, you seem to be the one obsessed with race. First you try to dismiss my argument that conservatives like to smear liberals by pointing out that Kerry and Gore were white. Now you're trying to say that I called Thomas an uncle tom. What's wrong with you? You're the one comming off as racist. Non-racist people don't take race into account as much as you seem to do.

Let's get a gay black lady, conservative who is a constitutional purist. That would make Kennedy have a stroke.

No, actual proof.

The view that the Establishment Clause precludes Congress from legislating respecting religion lacks historical provenance. Even when enacting laws that bind the states pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion," he says. "It need only refrain from making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion.

From that post up there. Is that good enough?

HEHE!

I just had a very bad thought!

RECESS APPOINTMENT! LOL!

I know! Its not going to happen but hey, Congress is in recess :D

Perhaps we should all get off the smear train. Both sides do it, and that isn't what the thread is about. To try and get this thread back on track anyone have any ideas on who Bush might attempt to appoint?

Still waiting on that quote.

Well, you'll have to be on here for a while then.

No, actual proof.
So policies motivated entirely by religious principles aren't proof enough for you? Statements by Bush's supporters that "God is on Bush's side" because of such policies aren't enough proof? You can't be persuaded.

It's called a typing error. Good grief, get over yourself.

A typing error twice in the same post, and then later in a completely different post? Sure.

Dude, you seem to be the one obsessed with race. First you try to dismiss my argument that conservatives like to smear liberals by pointing out that Kerry and Gore were white. Now you're trying to say that I called Thomas an uncle tom. What's wrong with you? You're the one comming off as racist. Non-racist people don't take race into account as much as you seem to do.


What are you getting at "dude"?

Herbert, Shut up. Lets not attack eachother in here please. You've done nothing but attack other posters because they disagreed with you. Knock it off.


They attacked me, so you shove it!

WILL EVERYONE STOP ATTACKING EACHOTHER OVER THIS PLEASE?

It doesn't serve a purpose but cause friction. I do not want this locked because of the flames that are now sure to start coming. Everyone relax.

Better to have a government-worshipper in the court than a god-worshipper. A government-worshipper will respect the separation of church and state. A god-worshipper probably won't.

Concidering that separation of chuch and stat isn't even in the constiutution! It's actually from a letter written later by thomas jefferson. And it says separation of religion not separation from religion.

What are you getting at "dude"?
I think what I'm getting at is pretty clear. Your harping on racial issues only makes you seem obsessed with race. Understand, dude?

So anyone have any ideas on who Bush might try to appoint?

Concidering that separation of chuch and stat isn't even in the constiutution! It's actually from a letter written later by thomas jefferson. And it says separation of religion not separation from religion.
God isn't in the constitution either. What is in the constitution is the rule that government can't establish religious beleif for the nation.

BTW, your distinction between separation of religion and from religion is false. If a religion is allowed to use government to enforce it's religious laws it will invariably trample on one or more other religions.

So anyone have any ideas on who Bush might try to appoint?

I wish I did but I wouldn't be surprised if its a black or hispanic female. You never can tell. I for one can't wait for the judicial battle to result.

I wish I did but I wouldn't be surprised if its a black or hispanic female. You never can tell. I for one can't wait for the judicial battle to result.

Should be a real slobberknocker. :p

Should be a real slobberknocker. :p

And if there's a filibuster, I'm going to write Senate Majority Leader Frist and tell him to declare it an all out filibuster and to bring the cots in and not leave till there's an up or down vote.

Now that would be fun to watch! LOL

Now if only the older conservatives retire so Bush can replace them with younger ones....we might have a grip on power for a long time to come :D

This is exactly what I am afraid if in contemporary politics. Politicians don't do what is best for America, they do what is best for the party. Two very different things. It is unfortunate that instead of having what is best for America in mind, far to many have what is best for their party. Dangerous, dangerous times. *Hopefully* Bush doesn't shove his head up his ass and apoint a Neo-con nut. That would tip the relative balance of the SC.

And remember-The Supreme Court is supposed to be free from politics, which is why Justices are appointed for life. Hopefully Bush realizes this.

I think what I'm getting at is pretty clear. Your harping on racial issues only makes you seem obsessed with race. Understand, dude?


Whatever you say "dude". Obsessed with race? Nah, I was just pointing out the racism in the Thomas hearings done by democrats. That's all. I could care less about race otherwise. See how easy it is to get you pinkos fired up.

And if there's a filibuster, I'm going to write Senate Majority Leader Frist and tell him to declare it an all out filibuster and to bring the cots in and not leave till there's an up or down vote.

Now that would be fun to watch! LOL

Wonder if Stroms record will be broken over this....*waits to hear about senators reading the comics during filibuster*. This is going to be better then the Superbowl Halftime show.

Whatever you say "dude". Obsessed with race? Nah, I was just pointing out the racism in the Thomas hearings done by democrats. That's all. I could care less about race otherwise. See how easy it is to get you pinkos fired up.

A bit ignorant about political insults here, so where did pinko come from now?

Wonder if Stroms record will be broken over this....*waits to hear about senators reading the comics during filibuster*. This is going to be better then the Superbowl Halftime show.

Yep it is going to be better than the Super Bowl Halftime show! :D

A bit ignorant about political insults here, so where did pinko come from now?

Pinko-Commie! Another name for the liberal elite or liberal left.

Whatever you say "dude". Obsessed with race? Nah, I was just pointing out the racism in the Thomas hearings done by democrats. That's all. I could care less about race otherwise. See how easy it is to get you pinkos fired up.
Fired up? You've never seen me fired up. Many people on this forum can tell you that my posts so far have been among the calmest and most civil I'm capable of. You, however, have been insulting people with many of your posts. You're the one who's a bit too fired up. Friendly warning, the moderators don't like that sort of thing.

BTW, Democrats never brought race into the Thomas confirmation hearings. They only brought up the point that Anita Hill may have been sexually harassed by him.

Concidering that separation of chuch and stat isn't even in the constiutution! It's actually from a letter written later by thomas jefferson. And it says separation of religion not separation from religion.

I'm sorry, I don't think I can control my anger at such stupidity and ignorance.

You obviously know NOTHING about the Constitution, or history infact.

Something does not need to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution-it needs to be implied, and the Supreme Court decides if something is implied(Which, guess what, Seperation of Church and State most assuredly is).

Want to know what else is not mentioned in the original Constitution:

Right to Bear Arms
Right to Privacy
Unsegragated Schools
Abolotion of Slavery
Mirranda Rights
Right to a Lawyer
Etc, etc, etc

But quess what: ALL of these are considered Constitutional Rights, because they are implied in the US Constitution. Get this through your thick skull or stop talking. If you don't understand how this country works, then you don't have any place to debate, at all.

Oh, and one more thing: The Justices who decided on the whole "Seperation" thing were all Christian . You know, you have no respect for your religion if you allow it to get involved with politics. Seperation of Church and State not only protects Government from Religion, but it protects Religion from Government. Remember that. Destroying Seperation of Church and State would have wide-spread ramifications, affecting everyone .

Ignorant little twits thinking they know what they are talking about. :headbang:

Pinko-Commie! Another name for the liberal elite or liberal left.

Learn something new every day.

Wow. The hysterics some have expressed here seem to be reminiscent of the Reagan era. Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor and everyone thought she would be ultra conservative. A Justice is going to vote his/her conscience based upon what he/she genuinely believes the Constitutional intent to be. Sometimes even a President doesn't know what he is really getting in a recommended appointee.

It is going to be okay - not the end of America

Want to know what else is not mentioned in the original Constitution:

Right to Bear Arms

Amendment 2

Right to Privacy

Not mentioned in the Constitution no but we do have privacy laws.

Unsegragated Schools

Correct, done by court order if I remember right.

Abolotion of Slavery

Not in the original but then was added via the 13th Amendment of the Constitution.

Mirranda Rights

Yep! Done by Court Order

Right to a Lawyer

Falls under Mirranda rights

Pinko-Commie! Another name for the liberal elite or liberal left.

Quick question: How did "Pinko" come to mean that? I can see any relation between "pinko" and being liberal. Is it just a word somebody made up, or did it derive from an actual word/group of words?

Fired up? You've never seen me fired up. Many people on this forum can tell you that my posts so far have been among the calmest and most civil I'm capable of. You, however, have been insulting people with many of your posts. You're the one who's a bit too fired up. Friendly warning, the moderators don't like that sort of thing.

BTW, Democrats never brought race into the Thomas confirmation hearings. They only brought up the point that Anita Hill may have been sexually harassed by him.

Oh no the wrath of the mods. I'm glad you could tell I was all fired up. Thanks for telling me how my emotional state was "dude".

BTW the democrats didn't bring up race but they implied it. ;)

Quick question: How did "Pinko" come to mean that? I can see any relation between "pinko" and being liberal. Is it just a word somebody made up, or did it derive from an actual word/group of words?

I do not know who invented it or when it came into being unfortunately.

Wouldn't it kinda make the whole thing.... non democratic, if the entire Supreme Court was Republican? Defies the point of people being able to choose if the judges are chosen for them.

Oh no the wrath of the mods. I'm glad you could tell I was all fired up. Thanks for telling me how my emotional state was "dude".

BTW the democrats didn't bring up race but they implied it. ;)
Sure. And you didn't say you were all fired up, you implied it.

Not much anymore if things go well :D

I guess this is karma from the gay marriage rulings in Spain and Canada.

Your acting as if American citizens had anything to do with what happened in Canada and Spain? I doubt 50% of Americans could tell you Spain's capital, let alone why they legalized gay marriage. :headbang:

Sure. And you didn't say you were all fired up, you implied it.


Thank you anyway for pointing my emotions out for me. Thanks again "dude".

Thank you anyway for pointing my emotions out for me. Thanks again "dude".
Oh, I get it. Putting dude in quotations is supposed to be offensive. Nice try dude, but I couldn't care less what you think of me. Anyhow, I'm done with you on this thread.

Still looking for the action decision this is from. This was a concurring opinion on a decision allowing religious services in prisons.

[thomas]The view that the Establishment Clause precludes Congress from legislating respecting religion lacks historical provenance. Even when enacting laws that bind the states pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion," he says. "It need only refrain from making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion.

In other words, Congress has to let a state establish a religion if they want to.[/QUOTE]

Technically that's true. I thought you were all about precedent? It wasn't until the nonsense of incorporation and an ex-klansman decided otherwise after WWII that peoples perceptions of the first amendment changed.

So you can hardly fault Thomas for pointing out the history.

In any case, if the states can be trusted to guard our property rights, they can be trusted to guard out religious freedoms.

In other words, Congress has to let a state establish a religion if they want to.

Technically that's true. I thought you were all about precedent? It wasn't until the nonsense of incorporation and an ex-klansman decided otherwise after WWII that peoples perceptions of the first amendment changed.

So you can hardly fault Thomas for pointing out the history.

In any case, if the states can be trusted to guard our property rights, they can be trusted to guard out religious freedoms.
If Thomas was correct on that issue then why did the collonies, some of which had official religions established by their governments, stop supporting official religion after the constitution was ratified? Wouldn't that be a precedent directly contradicting him?

[quote]Amendment 2

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

This can easily be interpretted as only those in the state militia can bear arms. Or it can mean that the Government can regulate which arms can and cannot be owned. It is rather unspecific. FORTUNATELY, it has been interpreted to mean that people(Most, anyway) have the right personally bear arms. But, the statement taken as a whole, does not necessarily mean that.

Although this was a bit of a slip up on my part.


Not mentioned in the Constitution no but we do have privacy laws.


Exactly my point. Something need not be mentioned directly.


Correct, done by court order if I remember right.

Yep. Had to be enforced by the President in some states, though.


Not in the original but then was added via the 13th Amendment of the Constitution.

The point was that originally, slavery was not unconstitutional. Thankfully, it was amended so, but originally Slavery was actually endorsed. You won't find anything about it in current texts of the Constitution, but originally Slavery was allowed.


Yep! Done by Court Order



Falls under Mirranda rights

I seperated the two because Gideon vs Wainwright was decided before Miranda. I was referring the Miranda rights needed be declared upon arrest, not the rights that it includes. Sorry for the confusion.

Wow. The hysterics some have expressed here seem to be reminiscent of the Reagan era. Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor and everyone thought she would be ultra conservative. A Justice is going to vote his/her conscience based upon what he/she genuinely believes the Constitutional intent to be. Sometimes even a President doesn't know what he is really getting in a recommended appointee.

It is going to be okay - not the end of America

I have to agree with you. Another example to further emphasis this.

Souter, David Hackett, 1939–, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990–), b. Melrose, Mass. A graduate of the Harvard Law School, he served as New Hampshire's attorney general (1976–78), and on the state's superior court (1978–83) before being named to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (1983–90). After serving only a short time as a judge on the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals (1990), he was named by President George H. W. Bush in July, 1990, to the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing William Brennan. Although regarded initially as a conservative, Souter emerged by the mid-1990s as key to a moderate bloc that resisted pressures from the political right to undo Court precedents of the 1960s and 70s.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0846021.html

So whether the administrations are conversvative, moderate, or liberal there is no telling on which side of the fence the Supreme court appointee will fall (possibly a fence stradler :) )

Well Thomas's opinion is just great, but incorporation does exist now and you can't go around letting the states do whatever they want. Why let the states in on the ratification process of amendments if said amendments don't apply to them? If we are to ignore incorporation every part of the Consitution that does not SPECIFICALLY mention the states means the stats can ignore that Constitutional law.

Your acting as if American citizens had anything to do with what happened in Canada and Spain? I doubt 50% of Americans could tell you Spain's capital, let alone why they legalized gay marriage. :headbang:

It's Madrid! Woohoo for Carmen SanDiego!

.....(possibly a fence stradler :) )

Ouch

It's called a typing error. Good grief, get over yourself.

Most people don't make the same typo consistently.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

This can easily be interpretted as only those in the state militia can bear arms. Or it can mean that the Government can regulate which arms can and cannot be owned. It is rather unspecific. FORTUNATELY, it has been interpreted to mean that people(Most, anyway) have the right personally bear arms. But, the statement taken as a whole, does not necessarily mean that.

Considering it was Private Citizens that made up the militia, they had to be armed. Anyway, you actually quoted the part that bears it out. "....,The right of the people to keep and bear arms...." That there says it in plain simple english that the people themselves had the right to bear arms.

Although this was a bit of a slip up on my part.

We all make mistakes my friend. No one is perfect.

Exactly my point. Something need not be mentioned directly.

I will agree with you there.

Yep. Had to be enforced by the President in some states, though.

Because of those that were racist that had control of the governments in those locations that the President had to enforce such an edict. With troops no less.

The point was that originally, slavery was not unconstitutional. Thankfully, it was amended so, but originally Slavery was actually endorsed. You won't find anything about it in current texts of the Constitution, but originally Slavery was allowed.

Yep! I believe it was the 3/5ths compromise. The North didn't want slaves counted, the south did (and for obvious reasons too) so they settled on the 3/5ths compromise. And if you truly do look at the constitution (minus the bill of rights) it is full of compromises. Even the first ten amendments were a compromise otherwise, it wouldn't have passed.

I seperated the two because Gideon vs Wainwright was decided before Miranda. I was referring the Miranda rights needed be declared upon arrest, not the rights that it includes. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah ok. I understand now. Good point :)

The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Hearings will be saturday morning cartoons compared to the smearfest/character assassination the liberals will try on the next appointee. Forget voting, it's time for nonstop filibuster.

I predict he or she will be labelled a nazi, homophobe, bigot, polluting, mean spirited, Jesus freak, out of control facist because they think differently than the liberals. Their freedom of speech is not for political discourse and honest debate but for character assassination of those who are different than they.

Here's the problem:

A justice's own personal moral opinions shouldn't mean anything, not even in their decisions. The sign of a good judge is that, when you read their decision, you have no idea if they are conservative, liberal, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, etc. If someone's decisions are biased by their personal political views, they shouldn't be up for consideration.

Wouldn't it kinda make the whole thing.... non democratic, if the entire Supreme Court was Republican? Defies the point of people being able to choose if the judges are chosen for them.

Well, most of the Justices were appointed by republicans. Fortunately in many cases these justices did not let politics get involved, which the Supreme Court should not do.

Now, I'm not saying the SC is free from politics, just that they are not nearly as affected so as Congressmen/Presidents. They do not need to worry about what is best for any party, which is a good thing. There is a reason why justices are appointed.

*Hopefully* Bush realizes that whomever he appoints will have a long-lasting effect and who will have what is best for America in mind, not what is best for Conservatives or Republicans.

Note, the same would hold true for Liberals/Democrats, and I do not mean to imply differently.

Also, a quick note-The Supreme Court does not need to do what the people want. Rarely do the majority have in mind the rights of the minority. This is what makes the Supreme Court extremely important-They are the ultimate check against a Tyrrany by the Majority. And fortunately, they have done a very good job at doing this.

And remember-All of the Justices are Christian of some sort, so don't go bashing the SC as "Atheistic Christian Attackers", which they are not. Also, they know more about law than most can ever dream to acheive. I truly hope that whomever Bush appoints is qualified, knows the law, and has what is truly best for the country in mind.

Also, a quick tidbit-There is no age limit to be on the Supreme Court. A 3-year old could technically serve as a justice.

"In recent news, Justice Timmy wrote in the majority opinion of the case of Finders vs Keepers, that the Finder is indeed the Keeper, and the Loser is a Poo-poo head weeper. He then drooled on himself and ate candy."

If Thomas was correct on that issue then why did the collonies, some of which had official religions established by their governments, stop supporting official religion after the constitution was ratified? Wouldn't that be a precedent directly contradicting him?

They didn't. Not all of them. Mass kept its state sponsored religion for quite a while after the bill of rights was ratified.

Also, public schools had official prayers throughout the country until the twentieth century. It wasn't considered a breech of the first amendment. Many states adopted there own versions of the first amendment in the state constitutions, but certainly the perception was that the it was a state matter and it was only during the twentieth century this began to change.

The "wall" of seperation is a post WWII idea. (Evernson is the case I think). Hugo Black (ex Klansman) introduced the phrase in his opinion. In any case, the idea that any of the bill of rights applies to the states has to post-date Palko v. Connecticut (which argued that as part of our ordered scheme of liberty the fifth amendment must be incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th - except in respect of property rights apparently :rolleyes: .) because until Palko the bill of rights was thought to apply solely to the federal government, and not the states.

I am not disputing that things are different today, but it's a bit unfair to rip on Thomas because he rightly points out that historically this was not the case. Especially from someone who runs around screaming that Kelo changed nothing, and that people should learn to respect precedent, because the supreme court cannot just change things on a whim.

[QUOTE=Seangolia]

Considering it was Private Citizens that made up the militia, they had to be armed. Anyway, you actually quoted the part that bears it out. "....,The right of the people to keep and bear arms...." That there says it in plain simple english that the people themselves had the right to bear arms.
And there is a whole sentence besides that, making saying it just like that out of context.

Technically that's true. I thought you were all about precedent? It wasn't until the nonsense of incorporation and an ex-klansman decided otherwise after WWII that peoples perceptions of the first amendment changed.

The 14th Amendment clearly applies the rest of the amendments to state government.

They didn't. Not all of them. Mass kept its state sponsored religion for quite a while after the bill of rights was ratified.

Also, public schools had official prayers throughout the country until the twentieth century. It wasn't considered a breech of the first amendment. Many states adopted there own versions of the first amendment in the state constitutions, but certainly the perception was that the it was a state matter and it was only during the twentieth century this began to change.

The "wall" of seperation is a post WWII idea. (Evernson is the case I think). Hugo Black (ex Klansman) introduced the phrase in his opinion. In any case, the idea that any of the bill of rights applies to the states has to post-date Palko v. Connecticut (which argued that as part of our ordered scheme of liberty the fifth amendment must be incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th - except in respect of property rights apparently :rolleyes: .) because until Palko the bill of rights was thought to apply solely to the federal government, and not the states.

I am not disputing that things are different today, but it's a bit unfair to rip on Thomas because he rightly points out that historically this was not the case. Especially from someone who runs around screaming that Kelo changed nothing, and that people should learn to respect precedent, because the supreme court cannot just change things on a whim.
I didn't know that about Massachusets. You learn something new every day. Thanks.

They didn't. Not all of them. Mass kept its state sponsored religion for quite a while after the bill of rights was ratified.

Yes, and Jim Crow laws were in existence for quite a while, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

The "wall" of seperation is a post WWII idea.

Funny, I wasn't aware the Thomas Jefferson lived that long.

Especially from someone who runs around screaming that Kelo changed nothing, and that people should learn to respect precedent, because the supreme court cannot just change things on a whim.

I love it that you make such wild claims.

I have never claimed that Kelo changed nothing. In fact, I have pointed out numerous times exactly what the difference between Kelo and precedent was. I have also never stated that people should "learn to respect precedent." All I have done was point out that the people stating that Kelo suddenly allowed eminent domain to be used for private endeavors are full of it, as there is precedent for allowing it.

You have fun with your strawman though.

The "wall" of seperation is a post WWII idea. (Evernson is the case I think). Hugo Black (ex Klansman) introduced the phrase in his opinion. In any case, the idea that any of the bill of rights applies to the states has to post-date Palko v. Connecticut (which argued that as part of our ordered scheme of liberty the fifth amendment must be incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th - except in respect of property rights apparently :rolleyes: .) because until Palko the bill of rights was thought to apply solely to the federal government, and not the states.
Wrong, Gitlow v New York predates Palko by 9 years and it discussed the application of the 1st ammendment to the states based on the 14th amendment.


I am not disputing that things are different today, but it's a bit unfair to rip on Thomas because he rightly points out that historically this was not the case. Especially from someone who runs around screaming that Kelo changed nothing, and that people should learn to respect precedent, because the supreme court cannot just change things on a whim.
Alot of things that exist now are "historically not the case," but the point is they exist, to reverse decades of case law jsut so states can officially support certain religions is the epitome of asinine

Honestly, do you think all of that fuss would have occured had Thomas been a non-conservative blackman?

Since you made the claim to me; I will answer it.

Thomas pushes an ideology rather then judging the laws. The fact that his skin is black has no merit in his actions.

Thurgood Marshall was black and people respected him. I respected him.

Thomas hasn't done much to garner respect.

Not to your claim. Scalia is white and people bash him all the time. So I guess your race card play has no merit.

Funny, I wasn't aware the Thomas Jefferson lived that long.


He also didn't write the consitution. The phrase wall of seperation between church and state didn't become widely used until Hugo Black's opinion. Up until that time it had nothing to do with constitutional law. It was merely in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists.

Should we comb all of Jefferson's letters and find out how to really interpret the constitution?

I'd like to return to the future new Justice. S/he will most likely be a woman and/or a minority representative... (Priscilla Owen? Janice Rogers Brown?) or an over-60 man.

P.S. The Chief Justice is old and frail; what if he goes too?

He also didn't write the consitution.

Irrelevant.

The phrase wall of seperation between church and state didn't become widely used until Hugo Black's opinion.

Ah, backpedaling.

So you recant your statement that it was a new idea and now simply state that it wasn't widely used?

I'd like to return to the future new Justice. S/he will most likely be a woman and/or a minority representative... (Priscilla Owen? Janice Rogers Brown?) or an over-60 man.

There's no way it could be Owen. She hasn't even been in her current position a month.

Besides, I would hope that Bush would be a little more intelligent than that. He's lucky he got such an activist up in any position - I would think he would realize that there is no possible way he'd get her on the SC.

Seriously, you liberals like to say that you are all for racial diversity, but infact you are the ones who push racial inequality. Just look at the makeup of Clintons' cabinet. Who was the highest ranked minority? Just because one of your minorities leave your camp you automatically discredit them for "not being a real minority".

Are you having conversations in your head? Nobody here brought up race.

Oh wait a minute. You did.

There's no way it could be Owen. She hasn't even been in her current position a month.

...
The Senate will find it difficult to reject a nominee it has just passed, isn't it? (Although Clarence Thomas was almost voted down a year after his Senate confirmation to the lower court).

I'd like to return to the future new Justice. S/he will most likely be a woman and/or a minority representative... (Priscilla Owen? Janice Rogers Brown?) or an over-60 man.

P.S. The Chief Justice is old and frail; what if he goes too?
You should be FAR more concerned about stevens going

The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Hearings will be saturday morning cartoons compared to the smearfest/character assassination the liberals will try on the next appointee. Forget voting, it's time for nonstop filibuster.

I predict he or she will be labelled a nazi, homophobe, bigot, polluting, mean spirited, Jesus freak, out of control facist because they think differently than the liberals. Their freedom of speech is not for political discourse and honest debate but for character assassination of those who are different than they.

:rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']You should be FAR more concerned about stevens going

I am. :(

We'll see. There isa Mike Crapo from Idaho. I dont think "Crapo" would survive-at least political satirists and cartoonists would be guaranteed work for a while.

I'm confused. Is the sole point of the reference to Senator Crapo to make a joke of his name?

Also, the Thomas hearings were just proof that the left couldn't handle a black man who is a conservative. They drug him through the coals over a totally false accusation. I guess he was just another uncle Tom, huh?

Are you a biggot? You are comming across like one.

About time that world government worshipping bitch retires.

Cute.

Bat-fucking insanely divorced from reality, but cute. :p

P.S. The Chief Justice is old and frail; what if he goes too?

If I remember correctly, he's a diehard conservative(Not a bad thing), so really "liberals" wouldn't have much to wine about either way-He is either replaced by a conservative or replaced by someone more liberal.

Either way, I would be dismayed. Really, Supreme Court justices should not be considered for being conservative or liberal. But that's just me.

Ihatevacations']Wrong, Gitlow v New York predates Palko by 9 years and it discussed the application of the 1st ammendment to the states based on the 14th amendment.

Gitlow found the statute in question constitutional. In dicta, it considered the question whether or not the fourteenth amendment's due process clause encompassed free speech rights. It did not however incorportate the first amendment into the fourteenth explicitly, but rather indicated that it held those rights of itself. Indeed, the dicta explicitly points out that the first amendment only restrains congress.


Ihatevacations']Alot of things that exist now are "historically not the case," but the point is they exist, to reverse decades of case law jsut so states can officially support certain religions is the epitome of asinine

I never said it should be overturned. But I don't think you should complain when someone points out that historically that was not the case.

They attacked me, so you shove it!

Attacked you? Wowwwww

You are the one who implied I was the biggot since I have issues with Thomas because he was black.

You asked for it and you getting it.

Sure he will. Sureeeeeeeee.

If you belive that, I have a bridge for you. ;)

It will be either another Thomas or another Scalia *sighs*

Actually, I'm not sure.

Bush doesn't have enough political capital to push through a hard-liner. He may not try.

Regardless, they best laid plans ....

Concidering that separation of chuch and stat isn't even in the constiutution! It's actually from a letter written later by thomas jefferson. And it says separation of religion not separation from religion.

:rolleyes:

Jefferson and Madison both spoke of the seperation of chruch and state.

For what you fail to understand is the goverment is supposed to be neutral towards Religion.

-edit-

Can somebody tell me where these people get these canned responses from?

What is wrong with Thomas?

Is it because he is a blackman, or maybe cause he isn't a democrat and thus isn't a real blackman?

It is that he is an unqualified ideologue that is unsuited for the Court and injurious to our liberties.

Irrelevant.



Ah, backpedaling.

So you recant your statement that it was a new idea and now simply state that it wasn't widely used?

When did I say Jefferson never said it. The fact is though, if this was 1930 no-one but a few obscure Jefferson scholars would ever have heard of it?

I am hardly backpeddling. And it certainly is a relatively new idea in the sphere of consitutional law.

Should be a real slobberknocker. :p

Are you a brit or an aussie?

Love the term. :D

And if there's a filibuster, I'm going to write Senate Majority Leader Frist and tell him to declare it an all out filibuster and to bring the cots in and not leave till there's an up or down vote.

Now that would be fun to watch! LOL

You don't have to bother. I already wrote that idiot and requested he get back on track. People are concerned about Iraq, the economy, jobs, health care and he talks about that.

The repubs had no problems using it. They better be careful as congress will be democratic again someday.

All I can say is that I'm happy to be able to witness an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. I was to young to really understand what was going on with Clarence Thomas and hence tuned it all out. Time to make up for my lack of vision. :)
You mean you missed Justice Ginsberg's appointment? Or did you mean a CONTROVERSIAL appointment? :confused:

I doubt 50% of Americans could tell you Spain's capital, let alone why they legalized gay marriage. :headbang:

You give us too much credit. I doubt 50% of americans can even name the capitols of 10 states. :D

Concidering that separation of chuch and stat isn't even in the constiutution! It's actually from a letter written later by thomas jefferson. And it says separation of religion not separation from religion.


There must be something in TOS that requires someone to post these silly statements in every thread related to SCOTUS or religion or government or ....

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1878. The particular phrase came from a letter by Jefferson.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison -- to describe their view of the First Amendment and the proper roles of religion and government.

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions.

Here's the problem:

A justice's own personal moral opinions shouldn't mean anything, not even in their decisions. The sign of a good judge is that, when you read their decision, you have no idea if they are conservative, liberal, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, etc. If someone's decisions are biased by their personal political views, they shouldn't be up for consideration.

Bingo! You get a brownie! :D

You give us too much credit. I doubt 50% of americans can even name the capitols of 10 states. :D
Stop putting down the 50% who can't and start being proud of the 65% who can!

We're not good at math either.

He also didn't write the consitution. The phrase wall of seperation between church and state didn't become widely used until Hugo Black's opinion. Up until that time it had nothing to do with constitutional law. It was merely in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists.

Should we comb all of Jefferson's letters and find out how to really interpret the constitution?

Fact remains both Jefferson and Madison both described it. It started before Hugo Black. In Teddy's time when they fought over "in god we trust" on the money, it was questioned there as well.

Since Jefferson and Madison both spoke of it; there is little to be argued over what was intended by the clause.

When did I say Jefferson never said it. The fact is though, if this was 1930 no-one but a few obscure Jefferson scholars would ever have heard of it?

I am hardly backpeddling. And it certainly is a relatively new idea in the sphere of consitutional law.

Um. I'm not going to back-track through your whole argument with Dem.

But your premise is really, really wrong.

Reynolds v United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

There must be something in TOS that requires someone to post these silly statements in every thread related to SCOTUS or religion or government or ....

The phrase is "wall of separation of Church and State" and it has been used by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor for the First Amendment since at least 1878. The particular phrase came from a letter by Jefferson.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" was used by many Founders -- particularly James Madison -- to describe their view of the First Amendment and the proper roles of religion and government.

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions.


I wasn't aware of the wall metaphor being used in any decision prior to Everson. Can you give me a reference. (And I ask this out of interest, not to nitpick).

Edit: Thanks. I saw the above post.

Actually, I'm not sure.

Bush doesn't have enough political capital to push through a hard-liner. He may not try.

Regardless, they best laid plans ....

You might be right but could it be the plan? They seem to want to outlaw the filabuster option so why not push a hardliners to force it?

We will have to wait and see.

I figure it won't be a Scalia type probably somebody like Thomas who will follow an agenda.

http://www.reason.com/0507/fe.an.who.shtml

During the next three years, George W. Bush will certainly nominate one and perhaps as many as three new Supreme Court justices. Any one of those nominations could set off a battle comparable to the political donnybrooks over Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork; just one could be enough to shift the balance of power on the bench.


With senatorial filibustering over lower-court appointees filling the headlines as of print time, we’ll leave the question of what will happen for another day. For our special courts issue, we asked several legal experts whom they’d like to see on the court. We also asked whom they liked best on the current court and who was their favorite Supreme Court justice of all time. Our participants range from the far left to the hard right, but they’re all libertarians in whole or in part.


A lawyerly bunch, some respondents chose not to answer every question (we’re not sure why, but those with cases pending in front of the Court seemed especially reluctant to name a current fave), but they all gave us interesting—and sometimes radically different—responses.

Read it all for it is cool.

Bye, bye, Roe v. Wade. You yanks should invest in wire hanger companies.

Bye, bye, Roe v. Wade. You yanks should invest in wire hanger companies.
Good advice. I think I might just do that.

There is a short list of contenders that the Bush Administration is considering for the position. All of them are extremely conservative. Currently, the forerunner seems to be none other than the current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales has served on the Texas Supreme Court and is considered a friend of Bush. His staunch conservative stances (anti-abortion in all cases, anti-contraception, pro-death penalty) makes him a favorite of the Republicans (who have the power now to confirm him) and his Hispanic heritage is also appealing to the Republicans who want to draw the Hispanic vote.

The Senate will find it difficult to reject a nominee it has just passed, isn't it? (Although Clarence Thomas was almost voted down a year after his Senate confirmation to the lower court).

I don't think so, especially with such a contentious passing.

We are talking about two different positions. Even if the majority of the Senate truly thinks she is ok for her current position, that doesn't mean that they think she would be a good SC justice.

Good advice. I think I might just do that.

Nahh start a smuggling business for RU486. :eek: ;)

When did I say Jefferson never said it. The fact is though, if this was 1930 no-one but a few obscure Jefferson scholars would ever have heard of it?

It isn't a new idea if there are people who know of it and have thought of it. If Jefferson said it, then it wasn't a new idea any time after Jefferson.

I am hardly backpeddling. And it certainly is a relatively new idea in the sphere of consitutional law.

Oh, now it's a new idea in the sphere of constitutional law. Again, that is different from it being a new idea.

Nahh start a smuggling business for RU486. :eek: ;)
Smuggling doesn't have stock options

I don't think so, especially with such a contentious passing.

We are talking about two different positions. Even if the majority of the Senate truly thinks she is ok for her current position, that doesn't mean that they think she would be a good SC justice.
Yes, that's true. The place on the Supreme Court is too important.

Ihatevacations']Smuggling doesn't have stock options

Good point.

Here's the problem:

A justice's own personal moral opinions shouldn't mean anything, not even in their decisions. The sign of a good judge is that, when you read their decision, you have no idea if they are conservative, liberal, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, etc. If someone's decisions are biased by their personal political views, they shouldn't be up for consideration.


Judges are people too. They cannot expected to leave all biases behind when they don the black robe. Otherwise, we should create justice machines and remove the task from human beings all together.

A person's biases are difficult to assess. A judge who was raised in a ghetto or by poor Mexican immigrants will not be able to automatically turn off his compassion for indigent field workers solely to fit a political party line. Sometimes he may fall on the conservative side of the fence and other times he will fall on the liberal side.

That being said, judicial decisions are ideally made within the parameters of the rules of statutory construction, rules of evidence (balancing trustworthiness against prejudice), rules of constitutional interpretation, and precedence. The issues that reach the supreme court are not clear cut, and although Justices rarely overrule presedence, they will differentiate it in a way that allows for the decision they believe is the right one and correct under the law as it exists.

When they don't believe that a just decision may be made under the then existing law, they make a decision under the law and then signal congress (through the language of the opinion) to address the issue through legislation.

I really think it is impossible to pre-determine how a justice is going to rule based on generalized issues and a few questions posed by Congressmen or reporters. Case decisions are very fact specific and you never know what little spin on a fact is going to make all the difference in a judges opinion on the matter.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I hope it helps put some perspective in this debate.

Oh, my god we screwed. :headbang:

There is a short list of contenders that the Bush Administration is considering for the position. All of them are extremely conservative. Currently, the forerunner seems to be none other than the current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales has served on the Texas Supreme Court and is considered a friend of Bush. His staunch conservative stances (anti-abortion in all cases, anti-contraception, pro-death penalty) makes him a favorite of the Republicans (who have the power now to confirm him) and his Hispanic heritage is also appealing to the Republicans who want to draw the Hispanic vote.


One thing to note is that once a lawyer is seated as a justice on the Supreme Court, he has no where else to go. He has reached the pinacle of his judicial career and no longer needs political friends and therefore, his liberal lawschool education just might creep back to the forefront of his mind.

Harry Reid said Mel Martinez would be good for the court. http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/drool.gif

The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees,

lmao, well if we don't draw now, we'll be on the ground the next minute...

I hear he might appoint Gonzales.

That would piss off his pro-life base. If he does I'll be going down to Washington with my Mossberg.

Anyone remember the Ranger revolt in Texas?

"Chastise the president!"

Judges are people too. They cannot expected to leave all biases behind when they don the black robe. Otherwise, we should create justice machines and remove the task from human beings all together.

Of course they can't leave all biases behind. That isn't possible as a human. However, they should do so to the furthest extent possible. Like I said, a good decision sounds like good law, not "good conervatism" or "good liberalism."

That being said, judicial decisions are ideally made within the parameters of the rules of statutory construction, rules of evidence (balancing trustworthiness against prejudice), rules of constitutional interpretation, and precedence. The issues that reach the supreme court are not clear cut, and although Justices rarely overrule presedence, they will differentiate it in a way that allows for the decision they believe is the right one and correct under the law as it exists.

And that is as it should be.

I really think it is impossible to pre-determine how a justice is going to rule based on generalized issues and a few questions posed by Congressmen or reporters.

I do too. This is why we look at their past decisions. This is why we don't just put someone who has never been a judge on the supreme court. Some people tend to lean one way or another for whatever reason, but are doing so within a rational interpretation of the law. Others, like Priscilla Owens, make decisions based on the fact that they don't like the law. If someone is consistently making decisions that are clearly not in the spirit of the law, one can assume they will continue doing so.

With some judges, it is blatantly obvious that they put their personal viewpoints ahead of the law. These should not be promoted. Are there less obvious cases? Of course.

Are you a biggot? You are comming across like one.


Way to keep responding to me after I had long since left.


Are you lonely?

Most people don't make the same typo consistently.


Have you taken a survey?

Most people like you are consistently wussish.

Have you taken a survey?

A typo is a mistake caused by typing too quickly. Some are rather common. For instance, "teh" instead of "the". However, you won't see someone who always types "teh" and never types "the" unless they are doing it on purpose.

Most people like you are consistently wussish.

Most people like me? And what, may I ask, group are you placing me in?

I do too. This is why we look at their past decisions. This is why we don't just put someone who has never been a judge on the supreme court. Some people tend to lean one way or another for whatever reason, but are doing so within a rational interpretation of the law. Others, like Priscilla Owens, make decisions based on the fact that they don't like the law. If someone is consistently making decisions that are clearly not in the spirit of the law, one can assume they will continue doing so.

With some judges, it is blatantly obvious that they put their personal viewpoints ahead of the law. These should not be promoted. Are there less obvious cases? Of course.

No duh. I do not recall a candidate for the Supreme Court that was universally considered a bad judge - well, I take that back. I do remember one whose judicial abilities were seriously questioned - but being a bad judge and being influenced, to some extent, by personal experiences (i.e. biases) is another thing entirely.

Most people like you are consistently wussish.
Now I am a connosseir of made up words, but wtf is that?

I know that I'm going to be watching the Judicial hearings on her replacement. Its going to get very very interesting.
All this does (when Bush appoints a conservative to the supreme court) is remove the last barrier to totalitarian government. So much for checks and balances. Congratulations.

http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Checks_Balances_600g60.gif

A typo is a mistake caused by typing too quickly. Some are rather common. For instance, "teh" instead of "the". However, you won't see someone who always types "teh" and never types "the" unless they are doing it on purpose.

If that's what you think!



Most people like me? And what, may I ask, group are you placing me in?

Oh, I'll let you use your imagination on that one!!

No duh. I do not recall a candidate for the Supreme Court that was universally considered a bad judge - well, I take that back. I do remember one whose judicial abilities were seriously questioned - but being a bad judge and being influenced, to some extent, by personal experiences (i.e. biases) is another thing entirely.

I never said being influenced to some extent. Like I said, it's impossible not to be.

However, being influenced to the point that other people can tell means that you allow those influences way too much leverage. And it does make you a bad judge.

Ihatevacations']Now I am a connosseir of made up words, but wtf is that?

Wussish-being big time sissy.

Way to keep responding to me after I had long since left.


Are you lonely?

Gee maybe because we are on at different times.

Oh, I'll let you use your imagination on that one!!

So you have nothing to back up your generalizations?

That's what I thought.

I never said being influenced to some extent. Like I said, it's impossible not to be.

However, being influenced to the point that other people can tell means that you allow those influences way too much leverage. And it does make you a bad judge.


Hey Dem, I am agreeing with you! Really. :)

Bye, bye, Roe v. Wade. You yanks should invest in wire hanger companies.
No, they will probably just come to Canada to get an abortion?

So you have nothing to back up your generalizations?

That's what I thought.

Seriously, you want me to tell you?

You'll go crying to the mods.

Seriously, you want me to tell you?

You'll go crying to the mods.

LOL you keep thinking that.

Demp can handle herself fine.

Wussish-being big time sissy.

Nice and judgmental, eh?

All this does (when Bush appoints a conservative to the supreme court) is remove the last barrier to totalitarian government. So much for checks and balances. Congratulations.

http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Checks_Balances_600g60.gif

3-1 He appoints someone like O'Conner CH!
10-1 he appoints a Conservative
30-1 he appoints a Liberal.

Nice and judgmental, eh?


Yes.

LOL you keep thinking that.

Demp can handle herself fine.


Don't even get me started on you.

Don't even get me started on you.

I am a big boy sweetie.

Fire away.

:eek: *ducks for cover*

Yes.

Proud of it, too?

I am a big boy sweetie.

Fire away.

Grab a piece of your flab and slide off.

Bye, bye, Roe v. Wade. You yanks should invest in wire hanger companies.

Thast quite good, on reason Abortion is legal is to stop bodily harm on the femal, better only one dead the 2 what what.

Proud of it, too?


Why not you Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child? Don't you believe in anything?

Woah, there dogies.

Nobody cares what HWA thinks of Dem or Black Forrest. Do we?

Anything he says is just going to be a flame.

And inviting him to do it might be considered flamebait by a Mod that wished we all behaved.

Just let HWA's statements speak for themselves.

EDIT: Too late to stop the flames. But just let them fizzle out. It ain't worth it.

Thast quite good, on reason Abortion is legal is to stop bodily harm on the femal, better only one dead the 2 what what.


I gurantee you that abortion will not ever be abolished. There are too many years of legal prescedent.

Grab a piece of your flab and slide off.

:D

That's pretty good.

I am a distance runner btw, not much in the way of flab.

All this does (when Bush appoints a conservative to the supreme court) is remove the last barrier to totalitarian government. So much for checks and balances. Congratulations.

Two stars out of five for the sub-par Red Arrow impersonation attempt.

Having a more conservative Supreme Court dosen't change the system of checks and balances at all.

Why not you Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child? Don't you believe in anything?


I'm a woman, but if Faulknerian Idiot is the worst you can do, I'm not too bothered, otherwise.

Yes, your right, but does he fell proud that he has a W in his name, Yes I am Herbert W Armstrong, i come from a long line of Christian conservitives, I have 20 brothers and sisters b/c my father does not beleive it comdons, i also go to church group, and pray every day, I also like to put a shout out to my favorate person, Jesus... Savior of Man!

ok, i'm done

Here's what's going to happen ....

Bush will appoint a clown with a poodle.

Byrd will say, "Great! The perfect choice! He's in!"

The Democrats will say, "Ummmm ... wait a minute ...."

And everyone will be pissed at the Democrats.

Woah, there dogies.

Nobody cares what HWA thinks of Dem or Black Forrest. Do we?

Anything he says is just going to be a flame.

And inviting him to do it might be considered flamebait by a Mod that wished we all behaved.

Just let HWA's statements speak for themselves.

EDIT: Too late to stop the flames. But just let them fizzle out. It ain't worth it.

It might be so judged.

If the mods are around I am not offended by his comments. I find them a little amusing.

But that is just me.

Oh and HWA, Cat is right the mods do punish here if you didn't know that.

:D

That's pretty good.

I am a distance runner btw, not much in the way of flab.

If you are a "distance runner" then I am a 7' tall negro basketball player, with a donkey dick.

I gurantee you that abortion will not ever be abolished. There are too many years of legal prescedent.

That can be undone with one justice maybe 2. That is why this is going to get interesting.

I gurantee you that abortion will not ever be abolished. There are too many years of legal prescedent.

I'm not sure what gurantee means, but for once, I hope you're right.

Two stars out of five for the sub-par Red Arrow impersonation attempt.

Having a more conservative Supreme Court dosen't change the system of checks and balances at all.
Erh...it does when you have a conservative senate and executive branch.


Batten down the hatches, we're going to have a massive storm on our hands. Thanks O'Connor.


At least Reid knows what he is doing and has some control over a filibuster block in the senate.

I'm a woman, but if Faulknerian Idiot is the worst you can do, I'm not too bothered, otherwise.

You are?!@?!??!

Damn my detectors never work!

Oh and HWA, Cat is right the mods do punish here if you didn't know that.

OMG are you SERIOUS! No!!

BTW Punish me how? I like a good spanking. It helps remind me of the time I was in that North Korean prison camp back during the war.

If you are a "distance runner" then I am a 7' tall negro basketball player, with a donkey dick.
lol, well i am actuall a distanse runner, although i am not top notch.

Track, 3200m, steeplechase, 1600, and 4X800m, and i do X-country and will be doing indoor track next year, but i dont think any cares so i'll just shut up,


Yes, Do you feel proud that you have a W in his name, Yes I am Herbert W Armstrong, i come from a long line of Christian conservitives, I have 20 brothers and sisters b/c my father does not beleive it comdons, i also go to church group, and pray every day, I also like to put a shout out to my favorate person, Jesus... Savior of Man!

If you are a "distance runner" then I am a 7' tall negro basketball player, with a donkey dick.

Ahh what team to you play for?

That can be undone with one justice maybe 2. That is why this is going to get interesting.


I bet you a bag of money they will never reverse that decision.

You are?!@?!??!

Damn my detectors never work!

LOL. Yep, I'm almost 30, too. Does that shock you even more?

Edit: Time to explain the name, I guess. My brother is four years younger than I am. I wasn't fond of him when we were children (although I adore him now). He idolized his big sister, though. I was his favorite person, by far. My name was one of the first words he "said". But as a child, he had a terrible speech impediment (thankfully he's outgrown it completely), one that prevented him from saying Ts, Rs, and the Sh sound. That made it awfully difficult for him to learn the name Tricia. It came out Gicka, unless he was yelling. Then it came out Geeeeeeecka.

I thought quoting Louisa May Alcott might be a hint that I was a girl.

lol, well i am actuall a distanse runner, although i am not top notch.

Track, 3200m, steeplechase, 1600, and 4X800m, and i do X-country and will be doing indoor track next year, but i dont think any cares so i'll just shut up,


Steeple? You are masochistic. I tried that once.

3200, 1600 and cross country.

Indoor track. Nay I kind of like the outdoors.

Ahh what team to you play for?


This one! (http://www.africanamericans.com/WiltChamberlain_HarlemGlobetrotters.jpg)

Steeple? You are masochistic. I tried that once.

3200, 1600 and cross country.

Indoor track. Nay I kind of like the outdoors.

Why not keep the thread on topic?

Steeple? You are masochistic. I tried that once.

3200, 1600 and cross country.

Indoor track. Nay I kind of like the outdoors.
Isn't steeplechase horseracing?


That would have to be interesting to run.

LOL. Yep, I'm almost 30, too. Does that shock you even more?


Your gender is not important, unless you are some freaky TG hooker.

At least Reid knows what he is doing and has some control over a filibuster block in the senate.

Depending on who Bush puts up, look for the nuclear option if he does try the filibuster.

Frankly, I say just baton down the Congress and drag in the cots. Its time to have a true filibuster if Reid is going to risk the agreement that both sides agreed too.

Yes, your right, but does he fell proud that he has a W in his name, Yes I am Herbert W Armstrong, i come from a long line of Christian conservitives, I have 20 brothers and sisters b/c my father does not beleive it comdons, i also go to church group, and pray every day, I also like to put a shout out to my favorate person, Jesus... Savior of Man!

ok, i'm done

You have no idea who Herbert W Armstrong is, do you. Pencil-neck geek.

Why not keep the thread on topic?

KEEP Your head down! This is a hijacking!

Opps did I just commit a crime. Hey what are those guys in black suits doing here?

*MUMFPHHHH

You are right. Sorry. ;)

I bet you a bag of money they will never reverse that decision.

As much as that's tempting, I don't gamble.

Isn't steeplechase horseracing?


That would have to be interesting to run.
They should keep it that way, it sucks, This is me last year, freshmen year HS

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9125/evan4444va.jpg

This one! (http://www.africanamericans.com/WiltChamberlain_HarlemGlobetrotters.jpg)

:D

Ok I am not going to egg you on. I do find you funny and don't want to see you get kicked from the boards.

Depending on who Bush puts up, look for the nuclear option if he does try the filibuster.

Frankly, I say just baton down the Congress and drag in the cots. Its time to have a true filibuster if Reid is going to risk the agreement that both sides agreed too.
True filibusters don't exist, technically all that you have to do is keep voting down cloture (filibusters are one or two senator games, just hold the floor and keep talking, a relic that was abolished a long time ago in the senate, now it just needs a block of senators to refuse to close debate, even if they don't do anything/move onto other topics).

I don't think that he can make it through again, I don't think he has the votes. Last time he tried it, he barely missed a losing confrontation.

Two stars out of five for the sub-par Red Arrow impersonation attempt.
There was zero attempt on my part to impersonate the Red Arrow. I was just stating MY opinion.

Having a more conservative Supreme Court dosen't change the system of checks and balances at all.
Please explain. Perhaps I am not fully understanding the system of checks and balances.

Hey Dem, I am agreeing with you! Really. :)

I know =)

I just feel the need to clarify.

You have no idea who Herbert W Armstrong is, do you. Pencil-neck geek.
HUmm, i am not going to post anything else b/c your flamming now, but yes i know he is a relegious nut-job end of story

Having a more conservative Supreme Court dosen't change the system of checks and balances at all.

Having justices appointed for their personal political views, rather than their adherence to the law, is inherently a problem to the system of checks and balances.

Herbert W Armstrong - please try to be civil - you are making this thread a very angry one.

Depending on who Bush puts up, look for the nuclear option if he does try the filibuster.

Frankly, I say just baton down the Congress and drag in the cots. Its time to have a true filibuster if Reid is going to risk the agreement that both sides agreed too.

The agreement did not say that the fillibuster would never be used.

Thus, a fillibuster would not necessarily break the agreement.

Having justices appointed for their personal political views, rather than their adherence to the law, is inherently a problem to the system of checks and balances.
This was exactly my take on such a possibility. I am waiting for Kwangistar to get back to me on how my assumption was wrong.

Having justices appointed for their personal political views, rather than their adherence to the law, is inherently a problem to the system of checks and balances.

Ahhh! But Bush isn't going to go on Ideology unless you know something that isn't getting reported.

Herbert W Armstrong - please try to be civil - you are making this thread a very angry one.

I'm sorry, but when I was wounded in Korea, I developed a Tourette type syndrome. My apology.

Having justices appointed for their personal political views, rather than their adherence to the law, is inherently a problem to the system of checks and balances.

I'm sure s/he woudl be singing a completely different tune if it was a democrat stackign the court with "liberal" judges

The agreement did not say that the fillibuster would never be used.

Thus, a fillibuster would not necessarily break the agreement.

I don't think they will ever use the nuclear option. If they do it will be a huge mistake as they will lose a powerful tool if one day in teh future they will need it when there is a democratically controlled Congress

Ahhh! But Bush isn't going to go on Ideology unless you know something that isn't getting reported.
That's either incredibly naive or being knowingly untruthful.

I'm sorry, but when I was wounded in Korea, I developed a Tourette type syndrome. My apology.

Oh no!

Hannibal?

That's either incredibly naive or being knowingly untruthful.

We shall see if he'll appoint a moderate like I think he's going too.

Oh no!

Hannibal?

Wasn't he that dude back in the day of Rome and all that?

We shall see if he'll appoint a moderate like I think he's going too.
If by moderate you mean someone who will want to overturn Roe, and ensure that gay rights get's booted back to the 50's, sure, he'll appoint a moderate.

I'm sure s/he woudl be singing a completely different tune if it was a democrat stackign the court with "liberal" judges

The court has been "stacked" with liberal judges before (that's how we got Row). The checks and balances really do work in that if judicial activism gets out of control, Congress checks it with legislation targeted to remedy the offending Supreme Court decision. If Congress oversteps its bounds, the Supreme court checks it with a Constitutional Question decision. What drives the Congressmen making the decisions? We do!

Besides, Congress is not going to remain Republican. The pendulum will swing back as we keep moving on our wobbly path to the future.

If by moderate you mean someone who will want to overturn Roe, and ensure that gay rights get's booted back to the 50's, sure, he'll appoint a moderate.

That isn't what I ment CSW! I do think he's going to appoint a moderate.

That isn't what I ment CSW! I do think he's going to appoint a moderate.
Oh yes, the secretary bush apologist believe bush will actually appoint a moderate. Who would've guessed

The court has been "stacked" with liberal judges before (that's how we got Row). The checks and balances really do work in that if judicial activism gets out of control, Congress checks it with legislation targeted to remedy the offending Supreme Court decision. If Congress oversteps its bounds, the Supreme court checks it with a Constitutional Question decision. What drives the Congressmen making the decisions? We do!

Besides, Congress is not going to remain Republican. The pendulum will swing back as we keep moving on our wobbly path to the future.


For a first-hand view of this check in action, watch for the reaction of Congress to Monday's decision in the New London case.

For a first-hand view of this check in action, watch for the reaction of Congress to Monday's decision in the New London case.
You mean congress is doing what the court told it to do?


Rather, it is waiving a right given to it (and it isn't binding on the states until they pass a similar law themselves)?


Way to stick it to the SCOTUS man.

Pencil-neck geek.
The clouds part, the sun shines and it alllll becomes clear. Only one cat appropriates the identity of figures like, say, and end times preacher, uses the phrase 'pencil neck geek', makes claims like-
Please spare this disabled Korean War Vet. (Have all your limbs?) and links this image (http://www.besmark.com/minstrel.jpg) in every incarnation.

So, you're back. Now we know...

Ihatevacations']Oh yes, the secretary bush apologist believe bush will actually appoint a moderate. Who would've guessed

Me because I do think he'll appoint someone like Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

For a first-hand view of this check in action, watch for the reaction of Congress to Monday's decision in the New London case.

All ready a bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee due to this decision. I have a thread on it.

The clouds part, the sun shines and it alllll becomes clear. Only one cat appropriates the identity of figures like, say, and end times preacher, uses the phrase 'pencil neck geek', makes claims like-
(Have all your limbs?) and links this image (http://www.besmark.com/minstrel.jpg) in every incarnation.

So, you're back. Now we know...

What do you mean, and what are you getting at?

You ever taken a dump that made you feel like you just slept for eight hours?

Sorry I wasn't breaking bread with the President. I was up to my neck in bowl haircuts!

All ready a bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee due to this decision. I have a thread on it.

You're on the ball!

You're on the ball!

I try to be :)