 | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Maggie Cambron
| | | | (...) I'm delighted too for now, but isn't this a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the more liberal bodies? I assume it will be sent up to the U.S. Supreme Court for their decision-- and I bet we won't be so delighted then. BTW (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal
| | | | | (...) I understand that they have been overturned by the SC 12 of 17 times, or something like that. Nice track record! I assume it will be sent up to the (...) Especially after their (US Supreme Court) *last* ridiculous ruling (executing the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Actually, it was about *NOT* executing the mentally retarded, but your point is off-the-mark at any rate. Scalia castigated the SC for what he perceived as an attempt to establish a national consensus where none exists. If that's the case, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —John Neal
| | | | | (...) Well, he *was* writing the *dissent*... My point was the the majority used the concept of a national consensus for justification. If *that's* valid, then I would think that that justification would apply to the pledge case as well (where I (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
