Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

[JackBurton]

Well all you religious nuts can rest easy, your reference to the invisible magic man gets to stay in the pledge.

Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

The bad news for you is that it was knocked down due to a technicality. It looks like the Supreme Court wanted to dodge this one, and not address the real issue. That's ok, it is just a matter of time before it is removed.

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: JackBurton


Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

:thumbsdown:

 

[BatmanNate]

P&N!

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: JackBurton


Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

:thumbsdown:

No sh!t! :|

 

[waggy]

I agree. i think thats BS. It was not there when it was written so why does it have to be there now?

 

[DrPizza]

Hurray.

 

[dc]

"Well all you religious nuts can rest easy, your reference to the invisible magic man gets to stay in the pledge."

go trolling in P&N

 

[LemonHead]

Who cares! I can't stand how many people get their panties in a wad over a stupid thing like this. It's no big deal! What a waste of taxpayers' money to run this stupid lawsuit through the courts! There are far more important things to tackle than this.

 

[Vic]

So why don't you God-haters come up with a better legal battle?

The court's technicality was correct, whether you like it or not. He can't sue on his daughter's behalf because he doesn't have custody and is not her legal guardian.

 

[Maleficus]

keep on trolling, weee have fun bitch.

 

[Shawn]

who cares. it's been under god ever since I can remember. don't really care if it stays like that....... i'm not religious either.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Well all you religious nuts can rest easy, your reference to the invisible magic man gets to stay in the pledge.

Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

The bad news for you is that it was knocked down due to a technicality. It looks like the Supreme Court wanted to dodge this one, and not address the real issue. That's ok, it is just a matter of time before it is removed.

From reading your post, it is clear that you don't understand the nature of Constitutional law. They always look for the easiest way out - they are supposed to.

When the suit was brought, I did not think that the little girl's father - the party truly "injured" - did not have standing.

 

[NFS4]

If ya got a problem with "Under God," stop using US money

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What I don't understand is why it took so long to get tossed. The daughter didn't want her father to do this who BTW hasn't custody. No custody, and done without consent of the affected. This never should have been brought to court.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LemonHead
Who cares! I can't stand how many people get their panties in a wad over a stupid thing like this. It's no big deal! What a waste of taxpayers' money to run this stupid lawsuit through the courts! There are far more important things to tackle than this.

:beer::thumbsup:

 

[Platypus]

just don't say it if you don't want to... you didn't actually expect the supreme court to have the balls enough to challenge something in the constituion, especially about religion did you?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What I don't understand is why it took so long to get tossed. The daughter didn't want her father to do this who BTW hasn't custody. No custody, and done without consent of the affected. This never should have been brought to court.

The reason that it took so long was becase it made its way through the psycho-liberal 9th Circuit. The Justices on that court are notorious for having their decisions routinely overturned by the Supremes.

 

Not this again.

 

[yukichigai]

I think the 9th Circuit Court will have another ruling soon. Then the Supreme Court won't be able to sidestep it unless they want the entire Western U.S. not saying the pledge.

I think the "under God" refference should be removed. As has been said, it wasn't in the original pledge. Besides, I find it disquieting to speak words that were justified with "it shows we aren't like those Godless communists."

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
just don't say it if you don't want to... you didn't actually expect the supreme court to have the balls enough to challenge something in the constituion, especially about religion did you?

:roll:

That statement is the very essence of ignorance.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
I think the 9th Circuit Court will have another ruling soon. Then the Supreme Court won't be able to sidestep it unless they want the entire Western U.S. not saying the pledge.

I think the "under God" refference should be removed. As has been said, it wasn't in the original pledge. Besides, I find it disquieting to speak words that were justified with "it shows we aren't like those Godless communists."

Actually, the whole ruling of the 9th Cir. in htis case should be bounced, since there was no standing. If you are in CA, WA, or OR - rejoice!

Anyone with Lexis - was it a reversed, or reversed and remanded?

 

[ElFenix]

the question may be better resolved through the political branches anyway.

and DA is correct, the court is supposed to always look for an easy way out if they can avoid a constitutional question. unfortunately members of the court often forget this basic tenet whenever it suits their politics.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
just don't say it if you don't want to... you didn't actually expect the supreme court to have the balls enough to challenge something in the constituion, especially about religion did you?

:roll:

That statement is the very essence of ignorance.

why

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Vic
So why don't you God-haters come up with a better legal battle?

The court's technicality was correct, whether you like it or not. He can't sue on his daughter's behalf because he doesn't have custody and is not her legal guardian.

:thumbsup:

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
just don't say it if you don't want to... you didn't actually expect the supreme court to have the balls enough to challenge something in the constituion, especially about religion did you?

:roll:

That statement is the very essence of ignorance.

why

The Supreme Court has historically tackled the issue of religion time and time again. Grab a Constitutional Law casebook, and thumb through the Freedom of Religion section.

Your statement is patently stupid.