And a judge was qualified to determine what is and is not science. No, they are not. And that is not what the judge in this case did.
I think I understand your meaning despite the strangled syntax. "Science" and "the scientific method" are clearly understood terms, therefore a judge is entitled to determine whether an idea qualifies as science. ID is based on the premise of supernatural processes, and therefore, by definition, is not science. Judge Jones, as a district court judge, was bound by Edwards, among other decisions, in reaching his opinion in this matter. You claim to be a lawyer, yet you repeatedly dishonor the justice system with your ravings about how hippies have taken over the federal courts, how the Supreme Court is wrong all the time -- hell, you barely think judicial review is legitimate.
Thanks for linking to the Edwards dissent; saves me the trouble of Googling it up. First, we note that Scalia was joined by Rehnquist. And only Rehnquist, which means that the other seven justices disagreed. 7-2 is democracy in action.
Second, in his opening paragraph, Scalia makes a stunning leap of faith (irony intended) when he writes
After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve.
If Mr. Justice Scalia truly believes that, I wonder if he'd be interested in this bridge? Creationism cannot be secular; its basis is a particular literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Third, if you loosen the definition of science to include the supernatural, creationism is not the onlyalternative to the theory of evolution. There are hundreds of creation myths, and biblical creationism has no more or less evidence for it than any of the others, from the belief that the earth is borne on the back of a turtle to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. To say that ID creationism is the only alternative to the theory of evolution is a false duality.
Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.
Why not teach that alongside the theory of evolution?
"Science" and "the scientific method" are clearly understood terms, therefore a judge is entitled to determine whether an idea qualifies as science. No, because that was not the issue. Maybe that is what you want the issue to have been but it was not. ID is based on the premise of supernatural processes, and therefore, by definition, is not science. Again, that was not the issue before the court, dingleberry.Judge Jones, as a district court judge, was bound by Edwards,among other decisions, in reaching his opinion in this matter. I do not disagree with that.You claim to be a lawyer, yet you repeatedly dishonor the justice system with your ravings about how hippies have taken over the federal courts, how the Supreme Court is wrong all the time -- hell, you barely think judicial review is legitimate. No, you are wrong again. Judicial review is fine when the judges that have that task understand their limitations. Justices such as Hugo Black, William Douglas, Earl Warren and Harry Blackmun, just to name a few either did not understand that or they deliberately ignored it. The courts are supposed to be bound by the constitution as much as any other branch of government. The left wing members of the Court over the years have refused to recognize any limitations on their power. The court's job is try to determine what was meant by those that drafted and ratified the constitution and its amendments. Instead, they make rulings that could not possibly have been the intent of the framers. Now I know you liberals reject the idea of original intent. But it is the only way a democratic government can work.
Thanks for linking to the Edwardsdissent; saves me the trouble of Googling it up. First, we note that Scalia was joined by Rehnquist. And only Rehnquist, which means that the other seven justices disagreed. 7-2 is democracy in action. Even you are not stupid enough to believe that, crabs maybe, but not you.Â
Third, if you loosen the definition of science to include the supernatural, creationism is not the onlyalternative to the theory of evolution. As I have told you, before the issue is not whether ID is science. Even if it were deemed to be science it would still be banned as it has a close connection to religion. Thank you liberal justices. To say that ID creationism is the only alternative to the theory of evolution is a false duality. Whether it is the only alternative really is irrelevant. What is relevant is that any reference to it is banned. Meaning the courts don't want the children to be exposed to the idea. Meaning the courts don't want children to think about it. It certainly can't be claimed that the liberals that have imposed this on the people have any regard for free thought.
No, free thought is not the arean of the modern liberal.
Why not teach that alongside the theory of evolution? That should be for a school board to decide, checked by the parents and taxpayers of the district. it is certainly not something the federal courts should decide.
Justices such as Hugo Black, William Douglas, Earl Warren and Harry Blackmun, just to name a few either did not understand that or they deliberately ignored it.
This just in: they're all dead. Two of them have been dead for over thirty years. That horse is not going to get up no matter how hard you hit it.
Why am I stupid to believe that if only Scalia and Rehnquist dissented from the Edwards decision, that the decision went 7-2? Are you artithmetically challenged?
Part of the defense in Kitzmiller was that ID was,in fact, a science. Therefore, the judge was bound to rule on whether it was or not. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
This just in: they're all dead. So? The decisions they issued are still out there causing havoc.Two of them have been dead for over thirty years. Old people die. I mean most of the justices don't get there until they are in their mid fifties.That horse is not going to get up no matter how hard you hit it. I don't know what the hell you mean. Court decisions have long lives. Maryland v. McCulloch still is the law of the land. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade. There are a lot of them
Why am I stupid to believe that if only Scalia and Rehnquist dissented from the Edwardsdecision, that the decision went 7-2? You are stupid if you believe rulings from the supreme court are democratic. The fact that there are only nine of them, with jobs protected for life, without any practical check on their power,supports the idea that it is an oligarchy. That sure is how most of them act.Are you artithmetically challenged? Arithmetic has nothing to do with. I don't think you are stupid, although you might be. i think there is enough evidence to consider that possibility. What I do think is that you are dishonest.
Part of the defense in Kitzmillerwas that ID was,in fact, a science. Therefore, the judge was bound to rule on whether it was or not. No he wasn't bound to rule on it. Just because a party characterizes an issue in a certain way may have no bearing on what the real issues are. In Kitzmiller, any mention of ID as a science was irrelevant to what was really at issue.  From reading the opinion it is clear to me that even if the judge could have found that it was "science" he still would have ruled against the school. Why? Because it was too closely tied to a religious concept. The real issue was the bias against religion that is pervasive in the courts.  Are you sure you're a lawyer? I am sure. Are you sure you have a brain? I am not.
"Adherents to the theory...reject the view that regulatory agencies should operate independent of political control. The White House should have final say over rules and decisions issued by the federal bureaucracy, they say."
That's not all:
"The theory has since become the foundation for the current administration's assertions that it has the power to interpret treaties, determine the fate of enemy prisoners, and jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charging them."
"Adherents to the theory...reject the view that regulatory agencies should operate independent of political control. The White House should have final say over rules and decisions issued by the federal bureaucracy, they say." Regulatory agencies should not operate independent of political control. If they did it would be a recipe for disaster not to mention such an idea is undemocratic.
That's not all:
"The theory has since become the foundation for the current administration's assertions that it has the power to interpret treaties, determine the fate of enemy prisoners, and jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charging them." All branches of government can interpret treaties and make such determinations as the fate of enemy combatants. The executive branch has to to do its job.Â
I do not wish to register with the wall stree journal on line. Does the article say Altio is a Unitarian? Is that an issue? Taft was a Unitarian. So what?
"The Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."'
and,,,
"In 2000, Judge Alito referred to the unitary-executive theory of presidential power as "the gospel according to OLC," a reference to his office in the Reagan Justice Department. "
I guess he was sick the day con-law class covered Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer. Odd that a Federalist Society type would endorse the idea of unlimited executive power.
"Regulatory agencies should not operate independent of political control. If they did it would be a recipe for disaster not to mention such an idea is undemocratic."
Enforcment of existing regulations and laws should be subject to the will and whims of a temporary resident of the White House? That's how you would define democracy?
Talk about an imperial presidency!
As Louis XIV said: L'etat cest moi!The state is Me.
jethro, in Kitzmiller, one of the main decisions that is at issue is Edwards. Since Edwards forbids the teaching, as science, of a religious doctrine, the defendants argued that ID was science. Therefore, testimony was presented on both sides concerning whether or not ID was, in fact, science.
From reading the opinion it is clear to me that even if the judge could have found that it was "science" he still would have ruled against the school. Why? Because it was too closely tied to a religious concept. The real issue was the bias against religion that is pervasive in the courts.
First, the judge could not have found that ID is science because it clearly is not. Second, the real issue is the fundamentalist christian bias against science where science conflicts with a literalist interpretation of the bible. It was clear that the school board's purpose was to set up a false duality and tell high school students that they could choose the god of the book of gensis, or science, but not both.
Therefore, testimony was presented on both sides concerning whether or not ID was, in fact, science. It was presented but it was irrelevant.
First, the judge could not have found that ID is science because it clearly is not. Judges find things that are clearly not present all the time. Roe v. Wade is a prime example. There are a lot of others.Second, the real issue is the fundamentalist christian bias against science where science conflicts with a literalist interpretation of the bible. No the real issue is bias by liberals against religion. The Kitzmiller case would have never been brought except for that bias. The statement about ID did not prevent the teaching of evolution or anything else. it merely presented an idea that students could explore if they so chose. But the intolerant bastards did not even want ID mentioned.  It was clear that the school board's purpose was to set up a false duality and tell high school students that they could choose the god of the book of gensis, or science, but not both. No it was not clear at all. In fact, the statement thta was proposed did not state that evolution was wrong but only that it was a theory. people can and do reconcile the two all the time.Â
"The Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."' That is true.
"Regulatory agencies should not operate independent of political control. If they did it would be a recipe for disaster not to mention such an idea is undemocratic."
Enforcement of existing regulations and laws should be subject to the will and whims of a temporary resident of the White House? That's how you would define democracy? The executive is the one accountable to the people. The agencies are not. it has been the way things have operated since the rise of federal agencies. That is why political appointees are placed at the head of such agencies. Why does that seem so radical to you? Or is it that you are not adequately expressing what you mean?
I did not say anything about unlimited power. You need to read what I write and not read into it whatever you want. The executive powers are limited by the Constitution, I have never said otherwise.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Judge Alito. It's not always about you, jethro.
The statement about ID did not prevent the teaching of evolution or anything else. it merely presented an idea that students could explore if they so chose. But the intolerant bastards did not even want ID mentioned.
Why is it that ONLYevolution is mentioned as a scientific theory that has gaps? The theory of gravity has gaps, in that we still don't know quite how it works, but it definitely exists, yet it's taught in physics class without any disclaimer. No other science subject is required to have such a disclaimer read before it is taught. The disclaimer was clearly intended to cast doubt on a well-established scientific theory, implying that it was on shaky ground and that the only other alternative was ID, and that the book Of Pandas and People was a science text rather than a creationist treatise.
In fact, the statement thta was proposed did not state that evolution was wrong but only that it was a theory.
Again, no other scientific theory is presented with such a disclaimer.Why single out the theory of evolution? Why call the ToE "Darwin's view" when his idea has been fleshed out by many others since then?
To quote from the decision
The second paragraph of the disclaimer reads as follows:
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
P-124. This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’” Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1310; 14:110-12 (Alters); 1:92 (Miller).
Immediately after students are told that “Darwin’s Theory” is a theory and that it continues to be tested, they are told that “gaps” exist within evolutionary theory without any indication that other scientific theories might suffer the same supposed weakness. As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)). Additionally and as pointed out by Plaintiffs, it is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed with this conclusion by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading.
The next paragraph refers to ID not as a theory or a hypothesis, but as an "explanation." It is again clear that the choice of that word is intended to cast doubt on the ToE, and to imply that ID is the favored vies of the school board.
On an earlier point you raised, jethro, the founding fathers, whose intent you seem quite sure of, made federal court judges and justices lifetime appointees; there are no other constitutional offices that are lifetime positions, so we can be certain that this was not done by accident. What was the intent of the founders in doing that?
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Judge Alito. You really could have made that clear. Based on your prior attacks of me and the fact that you did not specify otherwise, it was a logical assumption. Â
The statement about ID did not prevent the teaching of evolution or anything else. it merely presented an idea that students could explore if they so chose. But the intolerant bastards did not even want ID mentioned.
Why is it that ONLYevolution is mentioned as a scientific theory that has gaps? Because that is when the school board had decided to present the issue. It really doesn't matter. If they had presented it any other time the result would have been the same. ... No other science subject is required to have such a disclaimer read before it is taught. That is not relevant either. But it makes sense to have the statement during the teaching of evolution because both the theory of evolution and ID offer an explanation of how life began. The disclaimer was clearly intended to cast doubt on a well-established scientific theory, implying that it was on shaky ground and that the only other alternative was ID, and that the book Of Pandas and Peoplewas a science text rather than a creationist treatise. No, the statement made no such claim. The statement simply presented an alternative that the school board thought was something the kids should think about. That is all. Why shouldn't kids be presented with the idea? Is there some reason they should not think about it? No reason other than liberal intolerance. Besides is there any reason that doubt should not be cast on the theory? Why can't it be questioned? You are sounding, as I have said before, that you believe in thought control.
In fact, the statement thta was proposed did not state that evolution was wrong but only that it was a theory.
Again, no other scientific theory is presented with such a disclaimer.
So what? ID was presented at that time because both the theory of evolution and ID go to the subject of the origin of life. Why single out the theory of evolution? One more time for the mentally challenged: ID is brought up when the subject is the origin of life. The theory of evolution has an explanation for that question. So does ID. Why call the ToE "Darwin's view" when his idea has been fleshed out by many others since then? Why does that matter?Â
The next paragraph refers to ID not as a theory or a hypothesis, but as an "explanation." And it is. I have heard explanations from my kid. I don't believe them all. I have heard explanations from you. I believe none of them. So what? It is again clear that the choice of that word is intended to cast doubt on the ToE, and to imply that ID is the favored vies of the school board.No, the statement does not imply that ID is favored. Besides why is ToE so holy it can't be questioned? The The statement simply presented an alternative, an alternative without details, and a source to learn more if the children so desired. It is ludicrous to say, much less believe, that such a statement is an establishment of religion. As I have said before the court case was motivated by liberal bias.
On an earlier point you raised, jethro, the founding fathers, whose intent you seem quite sure of, made federal court judges and justices lifetime appointees; there are no other constitutional offices that are lifetime positions, so we can be certain that this was not done by accident.
What was the intent of the founders in doing that?It was not done to allow people judges to ignore the constituion and impose their will, unchecked, upon the country. It is apparent that this was one of the mistakes that drafters made. They never thought that the court would have so much power, or that the judges would show such a lack of self restraint. Instead the believed that the court was the least dangerous branch of government, as Hamilton said. This error can be remedied and it needs to be.
Rat posted: "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."'
and,,,
"In 2000, Judge Alito referred to the unitary-executive theory of presidential power as "the gospel according to OLC," a reference to his office in the Reagan Justice Department. "
You really could have made that clear. Based on your prior attacks of me and the fact that you did not specify otherwise, it was a logical assumption.
Your definition of "logic" is rather strange. I was respoding to a post by Rat which referenced a speech by Alito before the Federalist Society. It's not always about you, jethro.
But it makes sense to have the statement during the teaching of evolution because both the theory of evolution and ID offer an explanation of how life began.
First, evolution is not "an explanation of how life began," it's an explanation of how species evolved. Second, evolution is a scientific explanation, with a huge body of evidence to support it. ID is a religious explanation which says "Wherever scientists do not currently understand how this occurred, a supernatural force was obviously responsible." That's not science and does not belong in science class. There are many different supernatural explanations for how we got to the present, and they all have the same amount of evidence to support them, which is none.Why is ID alone the alternative of choice? Because it's the one that coincides with the world view of biblical literalists. Under Edwards, that is not permissible in the public schools. Nor are any of the others.
It was not done to allow people judges to ignore the constituion and impose their will, unchecked, upon the country. It is apparent that this was one of the mistakes that drafters made.
Damn, you're a conceited little twit. Federal judges are given lifetime appointments to make them independent of the vagaries of public opinion and political pressure. The judiciary enjoys this unique independence so that they may make their rulings without fear or favor. I think it's one of the best ideas the founders had. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense against majoritarian abuse, and that is a good thing.
This error can be remedied and it needs to be.
So start raising funds to pass a constitutional amendment. I will not wish you good luck, as that would be hypocritical of me.
It's not always about you, jethro.
I am glad that you have gotten over your obsession. It was beginning to get annoying.
But it makes sense to have the statement during the teaching of evolution because both the theory of evolution and ID offer an explanation of how life began.
First, evolution is not "an explanation of how life began," it's an explanation of how species evolved.I think it does offer such an explanation.Second, evolution is a scientific explanation, with a huge body of evidence to support it. ID is a religious explanation which says "Wherever scientists do not currently understand how this occurred, a supernatural force was obviously responsible." The distinction is irrelevant except to show your disdain for religion.That's not science and does not belong in science class. It belongs in school, whether it be in science class or elsewhere. It simply makes sense to present it at a time when a similar topic is being discussed.  There are many different supernatural explanations for how we got to the present, and they all have the same amount of evidence to support them, which is none.
And oh holy science must be taught and religion suppressed. We know all about your kinds agenda. Why is ID alone the alternative of choice? That objection is disingenuous. There may not be time to offer others. And under a school system accountable to the people it is a democratic choice.   Because it's the one that coincides with the world view of biblical literalists. Yes we know that you and your kind want to suppress their ideas. You don't want to expose children to them. We know that you and your kind are afraid of them. We know that you and your kind fear that people make take up religion. Under Edwards,that is not permissible in the public schools. Nor are any of the others. What it is is suppression of an idea. What it is is hostility to religion. What it is bigoted.
It was not done to allow people judges to ignore the constitution and impose their will, unchecked, upon the country. It is apparent that this was one of the mistakes that drafters made.
Damn, you're a conceited little twit. You are an asshole, jackass. Federal judges are given lifetime appointments to make them independent of the vagaries of public opinion and political pressure. True. That was the reason given. But they are supposed to follow the Constitution not their own personal agendas or bias. The judiciary enjoys this unique independence so that they may make their rulings without fear or favor. They need a check otherwise you get decisions such as Roe that have no basis in the Constitution. That power is virtually unchecked. It needs to be checked. There are ways that it can be done much like a presidential veto can be overridden.  I think it's one of the best ideas the founders had. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense against majoritarian abuse, and that is a good thing. The Supreme Court is imposing minority abuse on the public by its blatant disregard for what the unmistakable intentions of the people that drafted the Constitution and those that ratified it. . Â
This error can be remedied and it needs to be.
So start raising funds to pass a constitutional amendment. I will not wish you good luck, as that would be hypocritical of me. The people should not have to resort to such action. Judges should follow the Constitution as is their sworn duty. But no. They have to make up "rights" that are not mentioned anywhere in the document. They ignore the purpose of why the document was created in the first place. They have usurped power form the states that was clearly left to the states. In so doing the subvert the democratic process.  When a group has such unchecked power it can only lead to tyranny. When that happens the entire system may crumble, or alternatively, the Court will be ignored. It has happened before in specific limited circumstances. It may be time to ignore them completely. That would be unfortunate because they are supposed to be performing an important function.
WASHINGTON Â— Senate Democrats plan to delay the Judiciary Committee's vote on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court for at least a week, slowing what could have been a quick confirmation process for President Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra day O'Connor.
First, evolution is not "an explanation of how life began," it's an explanation of how species evolved.
I think it does offer such an explanation.
I can't help it if you don't know much about the theory of evolution.
And oh holy science must be taught and religion suppressed. We know all about your kinds agenda.
When the government starts closing down churches, banning religious broadcasts and forbidding the sale of religious materials, then you can complain about religion being suppressed. Considering how many people profess to be christians in this country, thee idea that religion is being suppressed is ridiculous.
That objection is disingenuous. There may not be time to offer others.
So if there's not time to teach them all, choosing just one to present is a government endorsement of that religion, and that religion alone. That is impermissible.
Yes we know that you and your kind want to suppress their ideas. You don't want to expose children to them. We know that you and your kind are afraid of them. We know that you and your kind fear that people make take up religion.
Calm down, son. Most people adopt the religious beliefs of their families, and that's the appropriate place for religious teaching.
Under Edwards, that is not permissible in the public schools. Nor are any of the others.
What it is is suppression of an idea. What it is is hostility to religion. What it is bigoted.
What it is is the law of the land. What it is is government neutrality where religion is concerned. See my remarks on "suppression" above.
Judges should follow the Constitution as is their sworn duty. But no. They have to make up "rights" that are not mentioned anywhere in the document.
You obviously subscribe to judge Bork's view that the Ninth Amendment is "an inkblot." There are many fine legal scholars that disagree with you.
They ignore the purpose of why the document was created in the first place.
The Constitution was created to limit the power of the government over the people of the United States, and to define the powers of the government. Where the Constitution does not specifically give the government power, the default position should be that the government has to justify its desire to move into that area.
And oh holy science must be taught and religion suppressed. We know all about your kinds agenda.
When the government starts closing down churches, banning religious broadcasts and forbidding the sale of religious materials, then you can complain about religion being suppressed. I can complain about it now. What the courts have done is steal the people's right to teach their kids what they want their kids to know. Also, by banning any mention of religion they are giving the impression that it is not a good thing. So they have actually violated the free exercise clause.Considering how many people profess to be christians in this country, thee idea that religion is being suppressed is ridiculous. It is being suppressed.  The people that need it most the disadvantaged and neglected children are not allowed to hear about in maybe the only forum available to them.
That objection is disingenuous. There may not be time to offer others.
So if there's not time to teach them all, choosing just one to present is a government endorsement of that religion, and that religion alone. That was the way it was intended.That is democracy in action. That is impermissible. No. It was allowed for years. It was allowed because that was what the Constitution required. That was until it was subverted. The only reason that it is not permissible is through usurpation of state power by the courts based on deliberate lies.
Yes we know that you and your kind want to suppress their ideas. You don't want to expose children to them. We know that you and your kind are afraid of them. We know that you and your kind fear that people make take up religion.
Calm down, son. Most people adopt the religious beliefs of their families, and that's the appropriate place for religious teaching. The appropriate place is where the people decide. The Courts are not the people.Â
Â
What it is is suppression of an idea. What it is is hostility to religion. What it is bigoted.
What it is is the law of the land. If what you mean by law is judicial fiat you are correct. Â What it is is government neutrality where religion is concerned. Government neutrality was only intended to apply to the federal government. Religion to hostility that has no basis in the Constituion has forced that concept on the states. In so doing the people's liberty to govern themselves has been infringed. And that, dingleberry., is what the constitution was about.Â
Judges should follow the Constitution as is their sworn duty. But no. They have to make up "rights" that are not mentioned anywhere in the document.
You obviously subscribe to judge Bork's view that the Ninth Amendment is "an inkblot." I don't know what you mean. That is not how Bork sees it all. He sees the 9th amendment as protection from federal infringement on what the people in the states had already determined to be a right they wished to protect. The ink blot reference is to his opinion as to how other justices people like Hugo Black and William Douglas viewed it.There are many fine legal scholars that disagree with you. Legal scholars disagree with each other. So the comment is as stupid as all your others.Â
They ignore the purpose of why the document was created in the first place.
The Constitution was created to limit the power of the government over the people of the United States, and to define the powers of the government. It was created to limit the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only. Where the Constitution does not specifically give the government power, the default position should be that the government has to justify its desire to move into that area. Justify? How f-ing stupid are you? If the Constitution does not specifically give the federal government power they are supposed to be prohibited from using it. The Supreme Court, however, disregards that idea when it comes to them.
What the courts have done is steal the people's right to teach their kids what they want their kids to know.
Bullcrap. No it is true.Parents can teach their kids whatever they want to teach them. They should be able to teach what they want to teach them in their schools.They cannot empower the government to teach their children a religion. It is their government and its their schools. And until the likes of Hugo Black and William Douglas and similar idiots that followed it was allowed. It was allowed because that is what the Constituion required. it still does except for the tyranny of the left.Â
from one of the links: There is little, if any, question that the rights retained by the people refer, at least in part, to what are called "natural rights"
bull shit. The people that drafted the constitution would not have been so careful in drafting the docment limiting the power of the government and then turn around and give carte blanch power to the federal government to determine what unenemumerated rights existed or didn't exist. Even the most liberal justices did not believe that. One of them said. "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."
As Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito approach, we are getting a closer glimpse at the mindset of the various special-interest groups joining to oppose the nomination. Through their public statements they have exposed themselves, not Judge Alito, as extremist.
At this point, anyone who thinks the ACLU is looking out for the folks, sticking up for your rights, is absolutely hopeless. The American Civil Liberties Union has become the attack dog in the secular progressive jihad to change the culture and political landscape in America.
As it has throughout its misbegotten existence, Roeis the beneficiary of a thinly disguised double standard. If the subject were anything other than abortion, there would be little talk of respecting precedent. On the contrary, the Court would be urged to revisit a wrongly decided case that had caused great harm.
The veteran Todayshow critic has been taken to task by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation over his negative review of the gay cowboy western, in which he referred to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts."
In Monday's hearings, Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy expressed concern over an "academic study," which he said showed that Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents — arguing that "average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake" in Alito's courtroom.
National Review reports, however, that Kennedy himself commissioned the study by liberal University of Chicago law professor Cass Substein. What Kennedy did not mention is that in addition to his statistical conclusions, Professor Sunstein also found that "Judge Alito's opinions are carefully reasoned, well-done, attentive to law, lawyerly, and unfailingly respectful to his colleagues," adding, "the law, fairly interpreted, could well be taken to support" Alito's view.
Saddam Huessein's regime trained thousands of radical Islamist terrorists in the years leading up to the U.S. invasion... that according to documents recovered in Iraq. The Weeklyy Standard reports the documents show that elite Iraqi military units directed secret terrorist training across the country. The training camps turned out some 8,000 terrorists between 1999 and 2002 and Intelligence officials believe some of these terrorists are responsible for recent attacks in Iraq.
Officials also say the documents may represent the tip of the iceberg — just 2.5 percent of some 2 million documents have been thoroughly examined by U.S. intelligence. But despite urging from House Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra, the documents have yet to be released to the public.
Get this: There's a new principle in American education -- namely, that public schools are to be "uniformly" bad. Such is the rock-bottom meaning of that 5-2 Florida Supreme Court decision last week scuttling a public school voucher program.
It does raise a serious question: Would it have been better had we let a court as purblind as Florida's choose the president of the whole, entire United States?
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
Sounds to me like the Constitution gives the states a lot of say in how they choose their electors, but the Supreme Court overruled them. Picking a president is about as activist as a court gets, IMO.
Like I said you are so caught up in liberal dogma that you are incapable of original thought. There were a number of Constitutional grounds for overturning the activist Florida court. One being that the Constitution specifically gave the state legislature the power to choose the electors and not state courts. There were also equal protection and due process arguments. But of course you are not interested in reason or the Constitution.
Originalism leads to unsettling results. After decades of "The Living Constitution
", people at large have grown used to using the shorthand "unconstitutional" for "socially unacceptable"; hence, laws banning sodomy were unacceptable, they must therefore be unconstitutional; executing minors is unacceptable, so it must therefore be unconstitutional. If an originalist approach is applied, one discovers that many things that are unacceptable areconstitutional under that approach.
have you read anything more ignorant? I mean other than pieter's posts.
Kennedy is concerned that Alito is pro police. Kennedy is concerned that murderists, rapists, thugs and criminals in general might actually be convicted.
The Supreme Court ordered that the ballot recount be stopped. That's a federal court interfering in the process of a state choosing its electors. The Florida Supreme Court got involved because the legislature had passed several acts concerning elections which were in conflict; it is the job of the state Supreme Court to sort that out.
What is your explanation for the Supreme Court writing into its opinion that Bush v. Gore should not be cited as precedent? Mine is that they knew it was a lousy decision.
The Supreme Court ordered that the ballot recount be stopped. It was the Court enforcing the unambiguous terms of Article II of the Constitution.That's a federal court interfering in the process of a state choosing its electors. The Constitution set forth the manner in which the electors were to be chosen. The Florida legislature had done their job. The Florida Supreme Court effectively changed it. The Florida Supreme Court got involved because the legislature had passed several acts concerning elections which were in conflict; it is the job of the state Supreme Court to sort that out. No not in this case. The Constitution provided for exclusive jurisdiction to the Florida legislature.
What is your explanation for the Supreme Court writing into its opinion that Bush v. Goreshould not be cited as precedent? Mine is that they knew it was a lousy decision. Of course you say that. it is the liberal mantra.
A 7–2 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. Because the recount was unconstitutional, the Court had to fashion the proper remedy. Since oral arguments in the case occurred on December 11, there was a limited amount of time available to conduct a recount. By law, the Electoral College was scheduled to meet and cast their votes on December 18, just seven days away. A further complication was the fact that 3 U.S.C. § 5 established a safe harbor for states. A state had to select its electors at least six days prior to the date the Electoral College would meet in order to ensure their electoral votes could not be challenged in Congress. This safe harbor deadline was December 12, the very next day.
Consequently, the court had to address whether to redo the recount under a new state wide standard, but miss the deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 5; or stop all recounts and go with the certified results of November 26.
Five of the seven justices (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed (yes the two left wing extremists)) ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was unconstitutional and decided to stop all recounts.
We join the per curiamopinion. We write separately because we believe there are additional grounds that require us to reverse the Florida Supreme Court's decisionÂ
another ignorant "argument" against originalism: The original intention or meaning of particular constitutional provisions can be understood at different levels of generality and the choice among such levels is arbitrary. For example, the US Constitution states "Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States." Clearly at the time the document was written and ratified, the "several States" referred to were thirteen in number. If any new states in addition to these do not by definition comprise the "several States," why can't phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" be changed deliberately?Â
Maybe because the new states were admitted through a democratic process (Article IV section 3)?Â
Originalism helps ensure predictability and protects against arbitrary changes in the interpretation of the Constitution; to reject originalism implicitly repudiates stare decisis. And if the Constitution as interpreted can truly be changed at the decree of a judge, then "The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." (Thomas Jefferson)
Dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) (Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm
I think I understand your meaning despite the strangled syntax. "Science" and "the scientific method" are clearly understood terms, therefore a judge is entitled to determine whether an idea qualifies as science. ID is based on the premise of supernatural processes, and therefore, by definition, is not science. Judge Jones, as a district court judge, was bound by Edwards, among other decisions, in reaching his opinion in this matter. You claim to be a lawyer, yet you repeatedly dishonor the justice system with your ravings about how hippies have taken over the federal courts, how the Supreme Court is wrong all the time -- hell, you barely think judicial review is legitimate.
Thanks for linking to the Edwards dissent; saves me the trouble of Googling it up. First, we note that Scalia was joined by Rehnquist. And only Rehnquist, which means that the other seven justices disagreed. 7-2 is democracy in action.
Second, in his opening paragraph, Scalia makes a stunning leap of faith (irony intended) when he writes
If Mr. Justice Scalia truly believes that, I wonder if he'd be interested in this bridge? Creationism cannot be secular; its basis is a particular literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Third, if you loosen the definition of science to include the supernatural, creationism is not the onlyalternative to the theory of evolution. There are hundreds of creation myths, and biblical creationism has no more or less evidence for it than any of the others, from the belief that the earth is borne on the back of a turtle to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. To say that ID creationism is the only alternative to the theory of evolution is a false duality.
Why not teach that alongside the theory of evolution?
"Science" and "the scientific method" are clearly understood terms, therefore a judge is entitled to determine whether an idea qualifies as science. No, because that was not the issue. Maybe that is what you want the issue to have been but it was not. ID is based on the premise of supernatural processes, and therefore, by definition, is not science. Again, that was not the issue before the court, dingleberry.Judge Jones, as a district court judge, was bound by Edwards,among other decisions, in reaching his opinion in this matter. I do not disagree with that.You claim to be a lawyer, yet you repeatedly dishonor the justice system with your ravings about how hippies have taken over the federal courts, how the Supreme Court is wrong all the time -- hell, you barely think judicial review is legitimate. No, you are wrong again. Judicial review is fine when the judges that have that task understand their limitations. Justices such as Hugo Black, William Douglas, Earl Warren and Harry Blackmun, just to name a few either did not understand that or they deliberately ignored it. The courts are supposed to be bound by the constitution as much as any other branch of government. The left wing members of the Court over the years have refused to recognize any limitations on their power. The court's job is try to determine what was meant by those that drafted and ratified the constitution and its amendments. Instead, they make rulings that could not possibly have been the intent of the framers. Now I know you liberals reject the idea of original intent. But it is the only way a democratic government can work.
Thanks for linking to the Edwardsdissent; saves me the trouble of Googling it up. First, we note that Scalia was joined by Rehnquist. And only Rehnquist, which means that the other seven justices disagreed. 7-2 is democracy in action. Even you are not stupid enough to believe that, crabs maybe, but not you.Â
Third, if you loosen the definition of science to include the supernatural, creationism is not the onlyalternative to the theory of evolution. As I have told you, before the issue is not whether ID is science. Even if it were deemed to be science it would still be banned as it has a close connection to religion. Thank you liberal justices. To say that ID creationism is the only alternative to the theory of evolution is a false duality. Whether it is the only alternative really is irrelevant. What is relevant is that any reference to it is banned. Meaning the courts don't want the children to be exposed to the idea. Meaning the courts don't want children to think about it. It certainly can't be claimed that the liberals that have imposed this on the people have any regard for free thought.
No, free thought is not the arean of the modern liberal.
Why not teach that alongside the theory of evolution? That should be for a school board to decide, checked by the parents and taxpayers of the district. it is certainly not something the federal courts should decide.
This just in: they're all dead. Two of them have been dead for over thirty years. That horse is not going to get up no matter how hard you hit it.
Why am I stupid to believe that if only Scalia and Rehnquist dissented from the Edwards decision, that the decision went 7-2? Are you artithmetically challenged?
Part of the defense in Kitzmiller was that ID was,in fact, a science. Therefore, the judge was bound to rule on whether it was or not. Are you sure you're a lawyer?
This just in: they're all dead. So? The decisions they issued are still out there causing havoc.Two of them have been dead for over thirty years. Old people die. I mean most of the justices don't get there until they are in their mid fifties.That horse is not going to get up no matter how hard you hit it. I don't know what the hell you mean. Court decisions have long lives. Maryland v. McCulloch still is the law of the land. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade. There are a lot of them
Why am I stupid to believe that if only Scalia and Rehnquist dissented from the Edwardsdecision, that the decision went 7-2? You are stupid if you believe rulings from the supreme court are democratic. The fact that there are only nine of them, with jobs protected for life, without any practical check on their power,supports the idea that it is an oligarchy. That sure is how most of them act.Are you artithmetically challenged? Arithmetic has nothing to do with. I don't think you are stupid, although you might be. i think there is enough evidence to consider that possibility. What I do think is that you are dishonest.
Part of the defense in Kitzmillerwas that ID was,in fact, a science. Therefore, the judge was bound to rule on whether it was or not. No he wasn't bound to rule on it. Just because a party characterizes an issue in a certain way may have no bearing on what the real issues are. In Kitzmiller, any mention of ID as a science was irrelevant to what was really at issue.  From reading the opinion it is clear to me that even if the judge could have found that it was "science" he still would have ruled against the school. Why? Because it was too closely tied to a religious concept. The real issue was the bias against religion that is pervasive in the courts.  Are you sure you're a lawyer? I am sure. Are you sure you have a brain? I am not.
R U a Unitarian? -- Alito is
"Adherents to the theory...reject the view that regulatory agencies should operate independent of political control. The White House should have final say over rules and decisions issued by the federal bureaucracy, they say."
That's not all:
"The theory has since become the foundation for the current administration's assertions that it has the power to interpret treaties, determine the fate of enemy prisoners, and jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charging them."
"Adherents to the theory...reject the view that regulatory agencies should operate independent of political control. The White House should have final say over rules and decisions issued by the federal bureaucracy, they say." Regulatory agencies should not operate independent of political control. If they did it would be a recipe for disaster not to mention such an idea is undemocratic.
That's not all:
"The theory has since become the foundation for the current administration's assertions that it has the power to interpret treaties, determine the fate of enemy prisoners, and jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charging them." All branches of government can interpret treaties and make such determinations as the fate of enemy combatants. The executive branch has to to do its job.Â
I do not wish to register with the wall stree journal on line. Does the article say Altio is a Unitarian? Is that an issue? Taft was a Unitarian. So what?
Unless I miss my guess, the "Unitarian" label is not a religious one but a political one. Is that the gist, Rat?
That is the gist.
"The Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."'
and,,,
"In 2000, Judge Alito referred to the unitary-executive theory of presidential power as "the gospel according to OLC," a reference to his office in the Reagan Justice Department. "
I guess he was sick the day con-law class covered Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer. Odd that a Federalist Society type would endorse the idea of unlimited executive power.
"Regulatory agencies should not operate independent of political control. If they did it would be a recipe for disaster not to mention such an idea is undemocratic."
Enforcment of existing regulations and laws should be subject to the will and whims of a temporary resident of the White House? That's how you would define democracy?
Talk about an imperial presidency!
As Louis XIV said: L'etat cest moi!The state is Me.
jethro, in Kitzmiller, one of the main decisions that is at issue is Edwards. Since Edwards forbids the teaching, as science, of a religious doctrine, the defendants argued that ID was science. Therefore, testimony was presented on both sides concerning whether or not ID was, in fact, science.
First, the judge could not have found that ID is science because it clearly is not. Second, the real issue is the fundamentalist christian bias against science where science conflicts with a literalist interpretation of the bible. It was clear that the school board's purpose was to set up a false duality and tell high school students that they could choose the god of the book of gensis, or science, but not both.
 Odd that a Federalist Society type would endorse the idea of unlimited executive power.
Therefore, testimony was presented on both sides concerning whether or not ID was, in fact, science. It was presented but it was irrelevant.
First, the judge could not have found that ID is science because it clearly is not. Judges find things that are clearly not present all the time. Roe v. Wade is a prime example. There are a lot of others.Second, the real issue is the fundamentalist christian bias against science where science conflicts with a literalist interpretation of the bible. No the real issue is bias by liberals against religion. The Kitzmiller case would have never been brought except for that bias. The statement about ID did not prevent the teaching of evolution or anything else. it merely presented an idea that students could explore if they so chose. But the intolerant bastards did not even want ID mentioned.  It was clear that the school board's purpose was to set up a false duality and tell high school students that they could choose the god of the book of gensis, or science, but not both. No it was not clear at all. In fact, the statement thta was proposed did not state that evolution was wrong but only that it was a theory. people can and do reconcile the two all the time.Â
"The Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."' That is true.
Enforcement of existing regulations and laws should be subject to the will and whims of a temporary resident of the White House? That's how you would define democracy? The executive is the one accountable to the people. The agencies are not. it has been the way things have operated since the rise of federal agencies. That is why political appointees are placed at the head of such agencies. Why does that seem so radical to you? Or is it that you are not adequately expressing what you mean?
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Judge Alito. It's not always about you, jethro.
Why is it that ONLYevolution is mentioned as a scientific theory that has gaps? The theory of gravity has gaps, in that we still don't know quite how it works, but it definitely exists, yet it's taught in physics class without any disclaimer. No other science subject is required to have such a disclaimer read before it is taught. The disclaimer was clearly intended to cast doubt on a well-established scientific theory, implying that it was on shaky ground and that the only other alternative was ID, and that the book Of Pandas and People was a science text rather than a creationist treatise.
Again, no other scientific theory is presented with such a disclaimer.Why single out the theory of evolution? Why call the ToE "Darwin's view" when his idea has been fleshed out by many others since then?
To quote from the decision
The next paragraph refers to ID not as a theory or a hypothesis, but as an "explanation." It is again clear that the choice of that word is intended to cast doubt on the ToE, and to imply that ID is the favored vies of the school board.
On an earlier point you raised, jethro, the founding fathers, whose intent you seem quite sure of, made federal court judges and justices lifetime appointees; there are no other constitutional offices that are lifetime positions, so we can be certain that this was not done by accident. What was the intent of the founders in doing that?
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Judge Alito. You really could have made that clear. Based on your prior attacks of me and the fact that you did not specify otherwise, it was a logical assumption. Â
Why is it that ONLYevolution is mentioned as a scientific theory that has gaps? Because that is when the school board had decided to present the issue. It really doesn't matter. If they had presented it any other time the result would have been the same. ... No other science subject is required to have such a disclaimer read before it is taught. That is not relevant either. But it makes sense to have the statement during the teaching of evolution because both the theory of evolution and ID offer an explanation of how life began. The disclaimer was clearly intended to cast doubt on a well-established scientific theory, implying that it was on shaky ground and that the only other alternative was ID, and that the book Of Pandas and Peoplewas a science text rather than a creationist treatise. No, the statement made no such claim. The statement simply presented an alternative that the school board thought was something the kids should think about. That is all. Why shouldn't kids be presented with the idea? Is there some reason they should not think about it? No reason other than liberal intolerance. Besides is there any reason that doubt should not be cast on the theory? Why can't it be questioned? You are sounding, as I have said before, that you believe in thought control.
Again, no other scientific theory is presented with such a disclaimer.
So what? ID was presented at that time because both the theory of evolution and ID go to the subject of the origin of life. Why single out the theory of evolution? One more time for the mentally challenged: ID is brought up when the subject is the origin of life. The theory of evolution has an explanation for that question. So does ID. Why call the ToE "Darwin's view" when his idea has been fleshed out by many others since then? Why does that matter?Â
The next paragraph refers to ID not as a theory or a hypothesis, but as an "explanation." And it is. I have heard explanations from my kid. I don't believe them all. I have heard explanations from you. I believe none of them. So what? It is again clear that the choice of that word is intended to cast doubt on the ToE, and to imply that ID is the favored vies of the school board.No, the statement does not imply that ID is favored. Besides why is ToE so holy it can't be questioned? The The statement simply presented an alternative, an alternative without details, and a source to learn more if the children so desired. It is ludicrous to say, much less believe, that such a statement is an establishment of religion. As I have said before the court case was motivated by liberal bias.
On an earlier point you raised, jethro, the founding fathers, whose intent you seem quite sure of, made federal court judges and justices lifetime appointees; there are no other constitutional offices that are lifetime positions, so we can be certain that this was not done by accident.
What was the intent of the founders in doing that?It was not done to allow people judges to ignore the constituion and impose their will, unchecked, upon the country. It is apparent that this was one of the mistakes that drafters made. They never thought that the court would have so much power, or that the judges would show such a lack of self restraint. Instead the believed that the court was the least dangerous branch of government, as Hamilton said. This error can be remedied and it needs to be.
Rat posted: "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."'
and,,,
"In 2000, Judge Alito referred to the unitary-executive theory of presidential power as "the gospel according to OLC," a reference to his office in the Reagan Justice Department. "
this looks good:
Sunday, January 8 at 2:20 am
The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=6130&schedID=395
Your definition of "logic" is rather strange. I was respoding to a post by Rat which referenced a speech by Alito before the Federalist Society. It's not always about you, jethro.
First, evolution is not "an explanation of how life began," it's an explanation of how species evolved. Second, evolution is a scientific explanation, with a huge body of evidence to support it. ID is a religious explanation which says "Wherever scientists do not currently understand how this occurred, a supernatural force was obviously responsible." That's not science and does not belong in science class. There are many different supernatural explanations for how we got to the present, and they all have the same amount of evidence to support them, which is none.Why is ID alone the alternative of choice? Because it's the one that coincides with the world view of biblical literalists. Under Edwards, that is not permissible in the public schools. Nor are any of the others.
Damn, you're a conceited little twit. Federal judges are given lifetime appointments to make them independent of the vagaries of public opinion and political pressure. The judiciary enjoys this unique independence so that they may make their rulings without fear or favor. I think it's one of the best ideas the founders had. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense against majoritarian abuse, and that is a good thing.
So start raising funds to pass a constitutional amendment. I will not wish you good luck, as that would be hypocritical of me.
It's not always about you, jethro.
I am glad that you have gotten over your obsession. It was beginning to get annoying.
First, evolution is not "an explanation of how life began," it's an explanation of how species evolved.I think it does offer such an explanation.Second, evolution is a scientific explanation, with a huge body of evidence to support it. ID is a religious explanation which says "Wherever scientists do not currently understand how this occurred, a supernatural force was obviously responsible." The distinction is irrelevant except to show your disdain for religion.That's not science and does not belong in science class. It belongs in school, whether it be in science class or elsewhere. It simply makes sense to present it at a time when a similar topic is being discussed.  There are many different supernatural explanations for how we got to the present, and they all have the same amount of evidence to support them, which is none.
And oh holy science must be taught and religion suppressed. We know all about your kinds agenda. Why is ID alone the alternative of choice? That objection is disingenuous. There may not be time to offer others. And under a school system accountable to the people it is a democratic choice.   Because it's the one that coincides with the world view of biblical literalists. Yes we know that you and your kind want to suppress their ideas. You don't want to expose children to them. We know that you and your kind are afraid of them. We know that you and your kind fear that people make take up religion. Under Edwards,that is not permissible in the public schools. Nor are any of the others. What it is is suppression of an idea. What it is is hostility to religion. What it is bigoted.
Damn, you're a conceited little twit. You are an asshole, jackass. Federal judges are given lifetime appointments to make them independent of the vagaries of public opinion and political pressure. True. That was the reason given. But they are supposed to follow the Constitution not their own personal agendas or bias. The judiciary enjoys this unique independence so that they may make their rulings without fear or favor. They need a check otherwise you get decisions such as Roe that have no basis in the Constitution. That power is virtually unchecked. It needs to be checked. There are ways that it can be done much like a presidential veto can be overridden.  I think it's one of the best ideas the founders had. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense against majoritarian abuse, and that is a good thing. The Supreme Court is imposing minority abuse on the public by its blatant disregard for what the unmistakable intentions of the people that drafted the Constitution and those that ratified it. . Â
So start raising funds to pass a constitutional amendment. I will not wish you good luck, as that would be hypocritical of me. The people should not have to resort to such action. Judges should follow the Constitution as is their sworn duty. But no. They have to make up "rights" that are not mentioned anywhere in the document. They ignore the purpose of why the document was created in the first place. They have usurped power form the states that was clearly left to the states. In so doing the subvert the democratic process.  When a group has such unchecked power it can only lead to tyranny. When that happens the entire system may crumble, or alternatively, the Court will be ignored. It has happened before in specific limited circumstances. It may be time to ignore them completely. That would be unfortunate because they are supposed to be performing an important function.
WASHINGTON Â— Senate Democrats plan to delay the Judiciary Committee's vote on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court for at least a week, slowing what could have been a quick confirmation process for President Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra day O'Connor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180740,00.html
slogan for 2006: Vote Ddemocrat: the party of obstruction.
In the spirit of Bob Dole.
First, evolution is not "an explanation of how life began," it's an explanation of how species evolved.
I can't help it if you don't know much about the theory of evolution.
When the government starts closing down churches, banning religious broadcasts and forbidding the sale of religious materials, then you can complain about religion being suppressed. Considering how many people profess to be christians in this country, thee idea that religion is being suppressed is ridiculous.
So if there's not time to teach them all, choosing just one to present is a government endorsement of that religion, and that religion alone. That is impermissible.
Calm down, son. Most people adopt the religious beliefs of their families, and that's the appropriate place for religious teaching.
Under Edwards, that is not permissible in the public schools. Nor are any of the others.
What it is is suppression of an idea. What it is is hostility to religion. What it is bigoted.
What it is is the law of the land. What it is is government neutrality where religion is concerned. See my remarks on "suppression" above.
You obviously subscribe to judge Bork's view that the Ninth Amendment is "an inkblot." There are many fine legal scholars that disagree with you.
The Constitution was created to limit the power of the government over the people of the United States, and to define the powers of the government. Where the Constitution does not specifically give the government power, the default position should be that the government has to justify its desire to move into that area.
When the government starts closing down churches, banning religious broadcasts and forbidding the sale of religious materials, then you can complain about religion being suppressed. I can complain about it now. What the courts have done is steal the people's right to teach their kids what they want their kids to know. Also, by banning any mention of religion they are giving the impression that it is not a good thing. So they have actually violated the free exercise clause.Considering how many people profess to be christians in this country, thee idea that religion is being suppressed is ridiculous. It is being suppressed.  The people that need it most the disadvantaged and neglected children are not allowed to hear about in maybe the only forum available to them.
So if there's not time to teach them all, choosing just one to present is a government endorsement of that religion, and that religion alone. That was the way it was intended.That is democracy in action. That is impermissible. No. It was allowed for years. It was allowed because that was what the Constitution required. That was until it was subverted. The only reason that it is not permissible is through usurpation of state power by the courts based on deliberate lies.
Calm down, son. Most people adopt the religious beliefs of their families, and that's the appropriate place for religious teaching. The appropriate place is where the people decide. The Courts are not the people.Â
Â
What it is is the law of the land. If what you mean by law is judicial fiat you are correct. Â What it is is government neutrality where religion is concerned. Government neutrality was only intended to apply to the federal government. Religion to hostility that has no basis in the Constituion has forced that concept on the states. In so doing the people's liberty to govern themselves has been infringed. And that, dingleberry., is what the constitution was about.Â
You obviously subscribe to judge Bork's view that the Ninth Amendment is "an inkblot." I don't know what you mean. That is not how Bork sees it all. He sees the 9th amendment as protection from federal infringement on what the people in the states had already determined to be a right they wished to protect. The ink blot reference is to his opinion as to how other justices people like Hugo Black and William Douglas viewed it.There are many fine legal scholars that disagree with you. Legal scholars disagree with each other. So the comment is as stupid as all your others.Â
The Constitution was created to limit the power of the government over the people of the United States, and to define the powers of the government. It was created to limit the power of the
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
only. Where the Constitution does not specifically give the government power, the default position should be that the government has to justify its desire to move into that area. Justify? How f-ing stupid are you? If the Constitution does not specifically give the federal government power they are supposed to be prohibited from using it. The Supreme Court, however, disregards that idea when it comes to them.
Bullcrap. Parents can teach their kids whatever they want to teach them. They cannot empower the government to teach their children a religion.
Read these and get back to me on the Ninth Amendment:
http://www.godofthemachine.com/archives/00000362.html
http://www.randybarnett.com/rightsbypeople.html
Bullcrap. No it is true.Parents can teach their kids whatever they want to teach them. They should be able to teach what they want to teach them in their schools.They cannot empower the government to teach their children a religion. It is their government and its their schools. And until the likes of Hugo Black and William Douglas and similar idiots that followed it was allowed. It was allowed because that is what the Constituion required. it still does except for the tyranny of the left.Â
from one of the links: There is little, if any, question that the rights retained by the people refer, at least in part, to what are called "natural rights"
bull shit. The people that drafted the constitution would not have been so careful in drafting the docment limiting the power of the government and then turn around and give carte blanch power to the federal government to determine what unenemumerated rights existed or didn't exist. Even the most liberal justices did not believe that. One of them said. "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."
As Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito approach, we are getting a closer glimpse at the mindset of the various special-interest groups joining to oppose the nomination. Through their public statements they have exposed themselves, not Judge Alito, as extremist.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2006/01/06/181225.html
At this point, anyone who thinks the ACLU is looking out for the folks, sticking up for your rights, is absolutely hopeless. The American Civil Liberties Union has become the attack dog in the secular progressive jihad to change the culture and political landscape in America.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180837,00.html
As it has throughout its misbegotten existence, Roeis the beneficiary of a thinly disguised double standard. If the subject were anything other than abortion, there would be little talk of respecting precedent. On the contrary, the Court would be urged to revisit a wrongly decided case that had caused great harm.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/chuckcolson/2006/01/09/181488.html
The veteran Todayshow critic has been taken to task by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation over his negative review of the gay cowboy western, in which he referred to Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Jack, as a "sexual predator" who "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts."
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18098,00.html?tnews
In Monday's hearings, Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy expressed concern over an "academic study," which he said showed that Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents — arguing that "average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake" in Alito's courtroom.
National Review reports, however, that Kennedy himself commissioned the study by liberal University of Chicago law professor Cass Substein. What Kennedy did not mention is that in addition to his statistical conclusions, Professor Sunstein also found that "Judge Alito's opinions are carefully reasoned, well-done, attentive to law, lawyerly, and unfailingly respectful to his colleagues," adding, "the law, fairly interpreted, could well be taken to support" Alito's view.
liberals are so dishonest!
Saddam Huessein's regime trained thousands of radical Islamist terrorists in the years leading up to the U.S. invasion... that according to documents recovered in Iraq. The Weeklyy Standard reports the documents show that elite Iraqi military units directed secret terrorist training across the country. The training camps turned out some 8,000 terrorists between 1999 and 2002 and Intelligence officials believe some of these terrorists are responsible for recent attacks in Iraq.
Officials also say the documents may represent the tip of the iceberg — just 2.5 percent of some 2 million documents have been thoroughly examined by U.S. intelligence. But despite urging from House Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra, the documents have yet to be released to the public.
Get this: There's a new principle in American education -- namely, that public schools are to be "uniformly" bad. Such is the rock-bottom meaning of that 5-2 Florida Supreme Court decision last week scuttling a public school voucher program.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/billmurchison/2006/01/10/181669.html
It does raise a serious question: Would it have been better had we let a court as purblind as Florida's choose the president of the whole, entire United States?
So is the Tenth Amendment an "inkblot" too?
So is the Tenth Amendment an "inkblot" too?
Article II, sec. 1
Sounds to me like the Constitution gives the states a lot of say in how they choose their electors, but the Supreme Court overruled them. Picking a president is about as activist as a court gets, IMO.
Like I said you are so caught up in liberal dogma that you are incapable of original thought. There were a number of Constitutional grounds for overturning the activist Florida court. One being that the Constitution specifically gave the state legislature the power to choose the electors and not state courts. There were also equal protection and due process arguments. But of course you are not interested in reason or the Constitution.
Originalism leads to unsettling results. After decades of "The Living Constitution
", people at large have grown used to using the shorthand "unconstitutional" for "socially unacceptable"; hence, laws banning sodomy were unacceptable, they must therefore be unconstitutional; executing minors is unacceptable, so it must therefore be unconstitutional. If an originalist approach is applied, one discovers that many things that are unacceptable areconstitutional under that approach.
have you read anything more ignorant? I mean other than pieter's posts.
Kennedy is concerned that Alito is pro police. Kennedy is concerned that murderists, rapists, thugs and criminals in general might actually be convicted.
The Supreme Court ordered that the ballot recount be stopped. That's a federal court interfering in the process of a state choosing its electors. The Florida Supreme Court got involved because the legislature had passed several acts concerning elections which were in conflict; it is the job of the state Supreme Court to sort that out.
What is your explanation for the Supreme Court writing into its opinion that Bush v. Gore should not be cited as precedent? Mine is that they knew it was a lousy decision.
The Supreme Court ordered that the ballot recount be stopped. It was the Court enforcing the unambiguous terms of Article II of the Constitution.That's a federal court interfering in the process of a state choosing its electors. The Constitution set forth the manner in which the electors were to be chosen. The Florida legislature had done their job. The Florida Supreme Court effectively changed it. The Florida Supreme Court got involved because the legislature had passed several acts concerning elections which were in conflict; it is the job of the state Supreme Court to sort that out. No not in this case. The Constitution provided for exclusive jurisdiction to the Florida legislature.
What is your explanation for the Supreme Court writing into its opinion that Bush v. Goreshould not be cited as precedent? Mine is that they knew it was a lousy decision. Of course you say that. it is the liberal mantra.
A 7–2 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. Because the recount was unconstitutional, the Court had to fashion the proper remedy. Since oral arguments in the case occurred on December 11, there was a limited amount of time available to conduct a recount. By law, the Electoral College was scheduled to meet and cast their votes on December 18, just seven days away. A further complication was the fact that 3 U.S.C. § 5 established a safe harbor for states. A state had to select its electors at least six days prior to the date the Electoral College would meet in order to ensure their electoral votes could not be challenged in Congress. This safe harbor deadline was December 12, the very next day.
Consequently, the court had to address whether to redo the recount under a new state wide standard, but miss the deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 5; or stop all recounts and go with the certified results of November 26.
Five of the seven justices (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed (yes the two left wing extremists)) ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was unconstitutional and decided to stop all recounts.
We join the per curiamopinion. We write separately because we believe there are additional grounds that require us to reverse the Florida Supreme Court's decisionÂ
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-949#concurrence1
Another purported reason against originalism: It has been argued that Originalism would hold Brown v. Board of Education to be wrongly decided.Â
Not if you ask Bob Bork. However,
Brown
was wrongly decided if you believe there is such a thing as super-precedent.
another ignorant "argument" against originalism: The original intention or meaning of particular constitutional provisions can be understood at different levels of generality and the choice among such levels is arbitrary. For example, the US Constitution states "Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States." Clearly at the time the document was written and ratified, the "several States" referred to were thirteen in number. If any new states in addition to these do not by definition comprise the "several States," why can't phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" be changed deliberately?Â
Maybe because the new states were admitted through a democratic process (Article IV section 3)?Â
Originalism helps ensure predictability and protects against arbitrary changes in the interpretation of the Constitution; to reject originalism implicitly repudiates stare decisis. And if the Constitution as interpreted can truly be changed at the decree of a judge, then "The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." (Thomas Jefferson)
http://www.jonathonforgovernor.us/Home_page.html
"Honesty is very seldom heard nowadays, especially
from a politician. So, I am not going to break from
political tradition. My name is Jonathon “The
Impaler” Sharkey, Ph.D., L.D.D.D. I am a Satanic Dark
Priest, Sanguinarian Vampyre and a Hecate Witch.
My Magikal Path name is: Lord Ares." :eyeroll: