To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 16751
16750  |  16752
Subject: 
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:56:36 GMT
Viewed: 
1247 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
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.

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 think we'd both agree a consensus *does* exist)

But its probably a moot point anyway (since the 9th CC judge stayed his own
ruling).

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...

As far as you know;-)

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.

Fair enough.  Politics.  What a concept.

-John



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
(...) 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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR