Supreme Court Won't Hear 10 Commandments Case

[BDawg]

CNN Link

The court has spoken...or lack thereof.

 

[DealMonkey]

DENIED!

/me: slams door on "Judge" Moore

 

[roboninja]

Oh my God (pun intended), a rational decision from a political group (and to anyone that says the Supreme Court is not political, puh-leeeeze!!).

 

[Gaard]

Damn, that's pretty bad when it's deemed not even worthy of being heard. What's that mean, anyways, when they won't even hear it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Damn, that's pretty bad when it's deemed not even worthy of being heard. What's that mean, anyways, when they won't even hear it?

It means the lower court ruling stands.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Yup, I'm sure "Judge" Moore is now quite the martyr in the Christian community.

/me: Whips out world's smallest violin ...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Damn, that's pretty bad when it's deemed not even worthy of being heard. What's that mean, anyways, when they won't even hear it?

It means the lower court ruling stands.

CkG

Yes. I know that. But when they won't even hear a case, are they saying "This is so obvious, we aren't even going to bother with it"? IOW, just because they hear a case doesn't mean they are going to overturn the lower court, right?

 

[kage69]

Gee, I'm gettin all misty now. I wish "Judge" Moore could be deported to Iran, he'd fit in great over there. Kudos to the Supreme Court for not caving in to the pressure from the right to clarify that which is already perfectly clear. I generally have a wary attitude towards that body but in this case I think it was the right thing to do.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Damn, that's pretty bad when it's deemed not even worthy of being heard. What's that mean, anyways, when they won't even hear it?

It means the lower court ruling stands.

CkG

Yes. I know that. But when they won't even hear a case, are they saying "This is so obvious, we aren't even going to bother with it"? IOW, just because they hear a case doesn't mean they are going to overturn the lower court, right?

IMO - I don't think he presented his case the right way. And so yes - one could probably determine that it was a case of "we aren't going to bother with it". I think there needs to be a ruling on how far either side can take this. ATM it's looking like any and ALL religious(any flavor) references need to be removed. But that'll cause problems as well because I worship the Ameican flag. It is my religion j/k

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Even if the USSC actually took the case, Scalia would probably have to recuse himself. I mean, he recused himself from the "Pledge of Allegiance" case due to his religious bias, so I would imagine to be consistent, he'd have to do so here as well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if the USSC actually took the case, Scalia would probably have to recuse himself. I mean, he recused himself from the "Pledge of Allegiance" case due to his religious bias, so I would imagine to be consistent, he'd have to do so here as well.

Actually he recused himself because he made public comments on the issue - not just because he has is "religious". I'm sure some of the other justices are "religious" too - should they recuse themselves too? No. He made public comments and did the right thing because of his public stance so he couldn't be accused of using the bench to further his own supposed agenda like some of the others have been accused of.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if the USSC actually took the case, Scalia would probably have to recuse himself. I mean, he recused himself from the "Pledge of Allegiance" case due to his religious bias, so I would imagine to be consistent, he'd have to do so here as well.

Actually he recused himself because he made public comments on the issue - not just because he has is "religious". I'm sure some of the other justices are "religious" too - should they recuse themselves too? No. He made public comments and did the right thing because of his public stance so he couldn't be accused of using the bench to further his own supposed agenda like some of the others have been accused of.

CkG

Maybe they should? What's the difference between a SC judge who professes her religious beliefs publicly and one who believes the same thing, but doesn't publicly discuss them? Nothing, IMO. They're both biased, are they not?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if the USSC actually took the case, Scalia would probably have to recuse himself. I mean, he recused himself from the "Pledge of Allegiance" case due to his religious bias, so I would imagine to be consistent, he'd have to do so here as well.

Actually he recused himself because he made public comments on the issue - not just because he has is "religious". I'm sure some of the other justices are "religious" too - should they recuse themselves too? No. He made public comments and did the right thing because of his public stance so he couldn't be accused of using the bench to further his own supposed agenda like some of the others have been accused of.

CkG

Maybe they should? What's the difference between a SC judge who professes her religious beliefs publicly and one who believes the same thing, but doesn't publicly discuss them? Nothing, IMO. They're both biased, are they not?

Right - and that's why they should rule on LAW - not make societal decisions based on their adgendas and bias. His recusal shows he has the integrity to know that his public statements puts him in a precarious position on that subject.

CkG

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if the USSC actually took the case, Scalia would probably have to recuse himself. I mean, he recused himself from the "Pledge of Allegiance" case due to his religious bias, so I would imagine to be consistent, he'd have to do so here as well.

Actually he recused himself because he made public comments on the issue - not just because he has is "religious". I'm sure some of the other justices are "religious" too - should they recuse themselves too? No. He made public comments and did the right thing because of his public stance so he couldn't be accused of using the bench to further his own supposed agenda like some of the others have been accused of.

CkG

Maybe they should? What's the difference between a SC judge who professes her religious beliefs publicly and one who believes the same thing, but doesn't publicly discuss them? Nothing, IMO. They're both biased, are they not?

Right - and that's why they should rule on LAW - not make societal decisions based on their adgendas and bias. His recusal shows he has the integrity to know that his public statements puts him in a precarious position on that subject.

CkG

Ironic that this standard applies so strictly in your opinion to USSC judges, but in Moore's case it's moot...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Ironic that this standard applies so strictly in your opinion to USSC judges, but in Moore's case it's moot...

Hmmmmm, yes. Most interesting. I wonder how Cad would account for that?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if the USSC actually took the case, Scalia would probably have to recuse himself. I mean, he recused himself from the "Pledge of Allegiance" case due to his religious bias, so I would imagine to be consistent, he'd have to do so here as well.

Actually he recused himself because he made public comments on the issue - not just because he has is "religious". I'm sure some of the other justices are "religious" too - should they recuse themselves too? No. He made public comments and did the right thing because of his public stance so he couldn't be accused of using the bench to further his own supposed agenda like some of the others have been accused of.

CkG

Maybe they should? What's the difference between a SC judge who professes her religious beliefs publicly and one who believes the same thing, but doesn't publicly discuss them? Nothing, IMO. They're both biased, are they not?

Right - and that's why they should rule on LAW - not make societal decisions based on their adgendas and bias. His recusal shows he has the integrity to know that his public statements puts him in a precarious position on that subject.

CkG

Ironic that this standard applies so strictly in your opinion to USSC judges, but in Moore's case it's moot...

As if you've read and understood my position on his case.

Here's a little clue for the reading impaired - "IMO - I don't think he presented his case the right way." Then go read my comments on the Moore case. I'm pretty sure that my comments were along the lines that he(Moore) was a tad over the top The issue at hand needs to be defined and I don't think that "religious" items are "establishment". The issue and Moore's position are two separate things IMO as I think that he's a tad over the top.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Ironic that this standard applies so strictly in your opinion to USSC judges, but in Moore's case it's moot...

Hmmmmm, yes. Most interesting. I wonder how Cad would account for that?

Hmm - yes not interesting - CAD has been quite clear on this subject. This issue goes way beyond some judge who has taken a position on this. Yes he's a tad extreme - but so is the other side. The LAW needs to resolve this - he isn't helping matters - which I've stated before.

Monuments are not establishment. If they are - Every single last monument that has ANY religious(any flavor) overtones shouldn't see the light of day on gov't property. That IMO is impossible - because like I said - I worship the flag and believe it is "holy" and will save me from the dark side.

CkG

 

[AEB]

I still thinks the case needs to be heard because it would be interesting to see what part of the constitution the supreme court quotes as "seperation of church and state". This is a political desicion as someone said, not a constitutional one.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: AEB
I still thinks the case needs to be heard because it would be interesting to see what part of the constitution the supreme court quotes as "seperation of church and state". This is a political desicion as someone said, not a constitutional one.

This leaves the battles to be waged State by State, local Jurisdiction by local Jurisdiction. One by one the Counties here in Georgia and every County in Tennessee are waging an American version of Jehad against those that are looking to take down the Foundation of America.

It's now a 4-way race to see which issue will bring the Country to Revolution first, Technology, Religion, Health or Taxes again.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: AEB
I still thinks the case needs to be heard because it would be interesting to see what part of the constitution the supreme court quotes as "seperation of church and state". This is a political desicion as someone said, not a constitutional one.

This leaves the battles to be waged State by State, local Jurisdiction by local Jurisdiction. One by one the Counties here in Georgia and every County in Tennessee are waging an American version of Jehad against those that are looking to take down the Foundation of America.

It's now a 4-way race to see which issue will bring the Country to Revolution first, Technology, Religion, Health or Taxes again.

Yup, there are those who are going to go after the primary foundation, take down the NON-religious interfearance of the government in favor of christian idealogy...in other words to form a state religion to replace the one that our forefathers fled from. Of your four options for revolutionary incentive I know which one will have me defending my rights first, thanks to the VARIED religious beliefs of our forefathers forming a government which takes no part in religious dogma.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Monuments are not establishment. If they are - Every single last monument that has ANY religious(any flavor) overtones shouldn't see the light of day on gov't property. That IMO is impossible - because like I said - I worship the flag and believe it is "holy" and will save me from the dark side.

CkG

You've already crossed over to the dark side, Cad. The path to the dark side starts with just one robotic body part, and your positronic brain simply cannot distinquish between religious activism and government neutrality that neither promotes or encourages one brand of religion... All religious monuments are religious, Cad, just like all flags are patriotic. Plant the American flag in downtown Damscus and what reaction do you get? Plant a Christian stone monument in the center of a U.S. government building and you get an equal reaction. Not from the Christians, of course, but from everyone else who wonders when the U.S. declared an "official" religion...

 

[Wolfdog]

Ok guys why don't you pull out all of your money from your wallets and see the "in god we trust" plastered all over it. Now you can send it to me. I wouldn't mind.
It is truely a sad day when the total lack or morality prevails in any sense, it is not a loss for christians, it is a loss for us all. Maybe if you guys spend 10 minutes thinking of just what the ten commandments stood for. It could be the message that this country was founded on. What a concept here guys. All ten are deep set morals(or should be) that even the justice system is based on. Thou shalt not kill. Hmmm thats not something I would want any one to see at a judicial building. Thou shalt not steal. Theres another basic concept that no one should see in a judicial building. Better yet go read the constitution and see for yourself just how much christian basis this country was built on. "One nation under god..." There is a fundamental seperation of church and state, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to say the pledge of allegance in school.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
Ok guys why don't you pull out all of your money from your wallets and see the "in god we trust" plastered all over it. Now you can send it to me. I wouldn't mind.
It is truely a sad day when the total lack or morality prevails in any sense, it is not a loss for christians, it is a loss for us all. Maybe if you guys spend 10 minutes thinking of just what the ten commandments stood for. It could be the message that this country was founded on. What a concept here guys. All ten are deep set morals(or should be) that even the justice system is based on. Thou shalt not kill. Hmmm thats not something I would want any one to see at a judicial building. Thou shalt not steal. Theres another basic concept that no one should see in a judicial building. Better yet go read the constitution and see for yourself just how much christian basis this country was built on. "One nation under god..." There is a fundamental seperation of church and state, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to say the pledge of allegance in school.

1) How is it a loss for us all?

2) You think we should have to recite the pledge in school?

 

[dmcowen674]

In some form it will wind up in front of the USSC because the very same people waging the War have said they will sue to get "In God We Trust" removed from the money. There will be no end to the nonsense. History repeating itself, a re-incarnation of the Dark Ages where all religion is outlawed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
Maybe if you guys spend 10 minutes thinking of just what the ten commandments stood for. It could be the message that this country was founded on. What a concept here guys. All ten are deep set morals(or should be) that even the justice system is based on.

But I covet my neighbor's ass every day (she's a hottie!) - I sure as hell don't want to be prosecuted for it. Nor do I want to be prosecuted for working on Sundays, flipping off my parents, or worshipping some other god(s). Whoever those may be.