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: 
2671 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, (...) (24 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
    

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