Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:36:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1511 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Especially after their (US Supreme Court) *last* ridiculous ruling (executing
> the mentally retarded), citing "a national concensus"-- how could the SC rule
> *against* the "in God" inclusion then? They have tied their own hands on this
> issue, one would suppose.
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, then there should be no problem for the SC to
"establish" a national consensus that it's unConstitutional for Congress to
have included "under God" in The Pledge.
> But then again, I'd never underestimate the hypocrisy of liberal judge and his
> desire to legislate from the bench....
And I can't imagine anything more galling than such a judge, except
perhaps a conservative President attempting to establish an
uber-Constitutional strike force--thank goodness that'll never happen...
Conservatives are certainly no less hypocritical than Liberals--judges or
otherwise. The difference is that you seem to agree with (and therefore
excuse) conservative hypocrisy.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
