Subject:
|
Re: Once again, the Supreme Court proves to be gutless
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:52:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
850 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> They'll find any excuse they can to avoid the truly "tough"(1) issues
> these days.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5208621/
>
>
> (1) I don't consider this a tough issue, but it's politically tough, and
> the SC is pretty much in the political branch of govt these days.
I'm an atheist. I refused to speak the pledge throughout my school years. I
was beaten and ridiculed by my peers while the teachers pretended not to notice
because of my stance. I oppose the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
because that indoctrination is antithetical to the free nation that I believe
the US was meant to be. And I'm glad for this court decision.
In the end, for the right reasons, the Supreme Court should outlaw the speaking
of the POA in public schools. But the court must be conservative. It is for
the good of the country that they dot every "i" and cross every "t." The court
must assure that the person bringing suit can legally do so before ruling. It
is normal for the court to rule in ways that even the justices don't exactly
like because their job is to process minutiae in a lawful way. I expect that
had the court found that Mr. Newdow was capable of speaking for his daughter we
would have seen a split decision. But the court can not (or should not) rule
beyond their jurisdiction. That gives them more power than we (or the founders)
should want them to have.
Obviously, this is all my fairly untrained opinion, but that's how I see it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
